Discussion:
Church and State Need Not be Seperate, Quote the Bugboy
(too old to reply)
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-06 23:33:04 UTC
Permalink
I agree. Since what god actually is can come down to semantics (God
is an all knowing personal entity or god is just natural law), then
the strong atheist has to take it on faith that no god exists in
any form as much as the theist takes it on faith that god exists
the way they believe god does.
Luckily as an agnostic I don't have get drawn into those
discussions since it's not important one way or another.
You're making the same mistake theists do.
Attempting to describe people outside their religion as though
inside-the-religion doctrinal presumptions even applied to them.
Agnosticism isn't the neutral position agnostics like to imagine.
They're already giving the theist's belief-object man unjustified
status that they don't give all the other deity beliefs, ghosts,
banshees, leprechauns etc.
And for some reason they refuse to grasp that "there's no God" is said
in exactly the same vein as "there's no Santa".
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state the
obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
Christopher A. Lee
2005-03-07 00:26:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 16:33:04 -0700, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
I agree. Since what god actually is can come down to semantics (God
is an all knowing personal entity or god is just natural law), then
the strong atheist has to take it on faith that no god exists in
any form as much as the theist takes it on faith that god exists
the way they believe god does.
Luckily as an agnostic I don't have get drawn into those
discussions since it's not important one way or another.
You're making the same mistake theists do.
Attempting to describe people outside their religion as though
inside-the-religion doctrinal presumptions even applied to them.
Agnosticism isn't the neutral position agnostics like to imagine.
They're already giving the theist's belief-object man unjustified
status that they don't give all the other deity beliefs, ghosts,
banshees, leprechauns etc.
And for some reason they refuse to grasp that "there's no God" is said
in exactly the same vein as "there's no Santa".
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state the
obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
No. There are genuine agnostics. It is not an alternative to atheism
but orthogonal.

To be honest, I can understand an atheist not wanting the opprobrium
that comes with the word, or not wanting to upset family..

Atheism is about theism and its absence, agnosticism about knowledge
and its absence.

Most atheists don't have anything to be agnostic about. Some do. And
there are even honest theist who admit that they believe but don't
know.

The litmus test is that however one describes their non-belief, if it
is the same for a deity called "God" that it is for all the other
deities, pixies etc then one is probably atheist. If it is different
for "God" than for all the others then one is probably agnostic.

The agnostics who annoy me are the ones who proclaim their
open-mindedness abou something that is only part of the theist
paradigm, while attacking atheists for a position we don't actually
have. Which hardly demonstrates the open-mindedness they claim.
FreeThink
2005-03-07 20:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:54:13 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
I agree. Since what god actually is can come down to semantics (God
is an all knowing personal entity or god is just natural law), then
the strong atheist has to take it on faith that no god exists in
any form as much as the theist takes it on faith that god exists
the way they believe god does.
Luckily as an agnostic I don't have get drawn into those
discussions since it's not important one way or another.
You're making the same mistake theists do.
Attempting to describe people outside their religion as though
inside-the-religion doctrinal presumptions even applied to them.
Agnosticism isn't the neutral position agnostics like to imagine.
They're already giving the theist's belief-object man unjustified
status that they don't give all the other deity beliefs, ghosts,
banshees, leprechauns etc.
And for some reason they refuse to grasp that "there's no God" is said
in exactly the same vein as "there's no Santa".
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state the
obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with atheism/theism.
I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so stop slandering me you
S.O.B.

Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic? Even
though you probably won't listen, as an act of purist optimism I will
tell you anyway. I value truth. Even though there is just an
infinitesimal chance of a god concept existing, I still don't know one
way or the other. That must seem really strange to you, valuing truth
that much, huh?
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-08 01:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:54:13 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
I agree. Since what god actually is can come down to semantics
(God is an all knowing personal entity or god is just natural
law), then the strong atheist has to take it on faith that no
god exists in any form as much as the theist takes it on faith
that god exists the way they believe god does.
Luckily as an agnostic I don't have get drawn into those
discussions since it's not important one way or another.
You're making the same mistake theists do.
Attempting to describe people outside their religion as though
inside-the-religion doctrinal presumptions even applied to them.
Agnosticism isn't the neutral position agnostics like to imagine.
They're already giving the theist's belief-object man unjustified
status that they don't give all the other deity beliefs, ghosts,
banshees, leprechauns etc.
And for some reason they refuse to grasp that "there's no God" is
said in exactly the same vein as "there's no Santa".
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state the
obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with atheism/theism.
I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so stop slandering me you
S.O.B.
Yet your cowardice won't let you proclaim your true atheism, now will it?
Post by FreeThink
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic?
Sure, why not?
Post by FreeThink
Even
though you probably won't listen,
All ears ...
Post by FreeThink
as an act of purist optimism I will
tell you anyway.
Oh joy!
Post by FreeThink
I value truth.
I see.
Post by FreeThink
Even though there is just an infinitesimal chance of a god concept existing, I
still don't know one
way or the other.
Really? Do describe what that "infinitesimal chance" is then. Since it is such a
miniscule possibility,
the description/character of this very very tiny god concept should be quite
short.
Post by FreeThink
That must seem really strange to you, valuing truth that much, huh?
BTW: what Theistic religion does this "infinitesimal" god concept the foundation
for anyway?
Dave Thompson
2005-03-08 02:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:54:13 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
I agree. Since what god actually is can come down to semantics
(God is an all knowing personal entity or god is just natural
law), then the strong atheist has to take it on faith that no
god exists in any form as much as the theist takes it on faith
that god exists the way they believe god does.
Luckily as an agnostic I don't have get drawn into those
discussions since it's not important one way or another.
You're making the same mistake theists do.
Attempting to describe people outside their religion as though
inside-the-religion doctrinal presumptions even applied to them.
Agnosticism isn't the neutral position agnostics like to imagine.
They're already giving the theist's belief-object man unjustified
status that they don't give all the other deity beliefs, ghosts,
banshees, leprechauns etc.
And for some reason they refuse to grasp that "there's no God" is
said in exactly the same vein as "there's no Santa".
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state the
obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with atheism/theism.
I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so stop slandering me you
S.O.B.
Yet your cowardice won't let you proclaim your true atheism, now will it?
Speaking of cowardice, have you contacted strongatheists and Wikipedia to
tell them they are wrong and there is no such thing as a strong atheist?
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by FreeThink
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic?
Sure, why not?
Post by FreeThink
Even
though you probably won't listen,
All ears ...
Post by FreeThink
as an act of purist optimism I will
tell you anyway.
Oh joy!
Post by FreeThink
I value truth.
I see.
Post by FreeThink
Even though there is just an infinitesimal chance of a god concept
existing, I still don't know one
way or the other.
Really? Do describe what that "infinitesimal chance" is then. Since it is
such a miniscule possibility,
the description/character of this very very tiny god concept should be
quite short.
Post by FreeThink
That must seem really strange to you, valuing truth that much, huh?
BTW: what Theistic religion does this "infinitesimal" god concept the
foundation for anyway?
Hey, you should get together with those Christians that go around judging
who is or who is not a good Christian. You're just like them.

You don't get to decide who is or who is not an agnostic, asshole.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-08 03:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:54:13 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
I agree. Since what god actually is can come down to
semantics (God is an all knowing personal entity or god is
just natural law), then the strong atheist has to take it
on faith that no god exists in any form as much as the theist takes
it on
faith that god exists the way they believe god does.
Luckily as an agnostic I don't have get drawn into those
discussions since it's not important one way or another.
You're making the same mistake theists do.
Attempting to describe people outside their religion as though
inside-the-religion doctrinal presumptions even applied to
them. Agnosticism isn't the neutral position agnostics like to
imagine. They're already giving the theist's belief-object
man unjustified status that they don't give all the other
deity beliefs, ghosts, banshees, leprechauns etc.
And for some reason they refuse to grasp that "there's no
God" is said in exactly the same vein as "there's no Santa".
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state the
obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with
atheism/theism. I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so stop
slandering me you S.O.B.
Yet your cowardice won't let you proclaim your true atheism, now will it?
Speaking of cowardice, have you contacted strongatheists and
Wikipedia to tell them they are wrong and there is no such thing as a
strong atheist?
Never said there wasn't -- it's simply irrelevant to any fundie-brained
claim that A-theism (of any flavor) requires:

<chose your favorite meaningless fundie-speak term here>
1) Faith
2) "Leap of Faith"
3) Religion
.
.
.
4) Therefore God exists!
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by FreeThink
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic?
Sure, why not?
Post by FreeThink
Even
though you probably won't listen,
All ears ...
Post by FreeThink
as an act of purist optimism I will
tell you anyway.
Oh joy!
Post by FreeThink
I value truth.
I see.
Post by FreeThink
Even though there is just an infinitesimal chance of a god concept
existing, I still don't know one
way or the other.
Really? Do describe what that "infinitesimal chance" is then. Since
it is such a miniscule possibility,
the description/character of this very very tiny god concept should
be quite short.
Post by FreeThink
That must seem really strange to you, valuing truth that much, huh?
BTW: what Theistic religion does this "infinitesimal" god concept
the foundation for anyway?
Hey, you should get together with those Christians that go around
judging who is or who is not a good Christian. You're just like them.
You don't get to decide who is or who is not an agnostic, asshole.
You've proven yourself to be an A-theist by your own words and admissions,
coward. That you got caught out in public must be quite embarrassing for you,
though I see you still lack that honesty to admit the indisputable fact.

Simply adds another data point to my premise that Agnostics are simply
closeted Atheists too spineless to admit it in public.
Dave Thompson
2005-03-08 05:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Dave Thompson
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:54:13 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
Speaking of cowardice, have you contacted strongatheists and
Wikipedia to tell them they are wrong and there is no such thing as a
strong atheist?
Never said there wasn't
Oh, yes you did you liar.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Dave Thompson
Hey, you should get together with those Christians that go around
judging who is or who is not a good Christian. You're just like them.
You don't get to decide who is or who is not an agnostic, asshole.
You've proven yourself to be an A-theist by your own words and admissions,
coward. That you got caught out in public must be quite embarrassing for you,
though I see you still lack that honesty to admit the indisputable fact.
Simply adds another data point to my premise that Agnostics are simply
closeted Atheists too spineless to admit it in public.
Aaaah, so I'm right. I'm a "bad atheist" and you are a "good atheist"

Thanks for proving my point.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-08 07:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Dave Thompson
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:54:13 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
Speaking of cowardice, have you contacted strongatheists and
Wikipedia to tell them they are wrong and there is no such thing
as a strong atheist?
Never said there wasn't
Oh, yes you did you liar.
Post my quote then, liar.

You won't, because it doesn't exist.

Here, and here's the pertinate part you snipped and ignored like a typical
fundie-brained jackass:

<restore>

it's simply irrelevant to any fundie-brained
claim that A-theism (of any flavor) requires:

<chose your favorite meaningless fundie-speak term here>
1) Faith
2) "Leap of Faith"
3) Religion
.
.
.
4) Therefore God exists!
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Dave Thompson
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic?
Sure, why not?
Post by Dave Thompson
Even
though you probably won't listen,
All ears ...
Post by Dave Thompson
as an act of purist optimism I will
tell you anyway.
Oh joy!
Post by Dave Thompson
I value truth.
I see.
Post by Dave Thompson
Even though there is just an infinitesimal chance of a god concept
existing, I still don't know one
way or the other.
Really? Do describe what that "infinitesimal chance" is then. Since
it is such a miniscule possibility,
the description/character of this very very tiny god concept should
be quite short.
Post by Dave Thompson
That must seem really strange to you, valuing truth that much, huh?
BTW: what Theistic religion does this "infinitesimal" god concept
the foundation for anyway?
What? No answer to your own proposition? What's the matter,
Jesus got your tongue?
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Dave Thompson
Hey, you should get together with those Christians that go around
judging who is or who is not a good Christian. You're just like
them. You don't get to decide who is or who is not an agnostic, asshole.
You've proven yourself to be an A-theist by your own words and
admissions, coward. That you got caught out in public must be quite
embarrassing for you,
though I see you still lack that honesty to admit the indisputable
fact. Simply adds another data point to my premise that Agnostics are
simply closeted Atheists too spineless to admit it in public.
Aaaah, so I'm right. I'm a "bad atheist" and you are a "good atheist"
Your words, not mine -- you made the suit, now you wear it, chump.
Post by Dave Thompson
Thanks for proving my point.
Your point that you're really a closeted Atheist who simply lacks the courage to
say so in public, and hides behind the wishy-washy veil of Agnosticism? -- Point
taken.
Joseph Fagan
2005-03-08 11:00:31 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state the
obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with atheism/theism.
I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so stop slandering me you
S.O.B.
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic? Even
though you probably won't listen, as an act of purist optimism I will
tell you anyway. I value truth. Even though there is just an
infinitesimal chance of a god concept existing, I still don't know one
way or the other. That must seem really strange to you, valuing truth
that much, huh?
Not an attack - I'm very interested in the response.
There being a very slim chance that God exists seperates (some) agnostics
from atheists - is this correct?
Why not take Pascal's Wager then? It's a no cost bet with salvation (of some
sort) as the prize!
Which sliver of an interpretation of "God exixsts" is most probably true? Is
it the Creator?, the individual God?..
Thanks
Joseph
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-08 17:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Fagan
<snip>
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state the
obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with
atheism/theism. I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so stop slandering
me you
S.O.B.
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic? Even
though you probably won't listen, as an act of purist optimism I
will tell you anyway. I value truth. Even though there is just an
infinitesimal chance of a god concept existing, I still don't know
one way or the other. That must seem really strange to you, valuing
truth that much, huh?
Not an attack - I'm very interested in the response.
There being a very slim chance that God exists seperates (some)
agnostics from atheists - is this correct?
No, the concepts of Atheism and Agnosticism are orthogonal.
They aren't parallel or linear extensions/regression of one another.
They aren't even apples vs. oranges, it's more like apples vs. a Ford Pinto

So called Agnostics take themselves completely out of the debate
altogether, they quite the game by refusing to play in the first place.

They claim is isn't possible <for man> to know God exists or doesn't.
The vast majority of so called Agnostics made that choice to quite
the game after playing for a while, and after playing for a while
they inevitably and logically found themselves standing at the "abyss"
(my pun) of atheism, and instead of taking the next logical step when
faced with no reasonable or logical proposition for god(s), they
turn tail and run, claiming -- "I'm not going to play the game anymore,
It's not playable, too complex for man to comprehend, I'll sit
on the sidelines and let you Theists battle with the Atheists, then
like the Occupied French, I'll side with whomever is the winner in
the end". How quaint.
Post by Joseph Fagan
Why not take Pascal's Wager then?
It's a sucker's bet, like "insurance" against Dealer Blackjack at
the draw.
Post by Joseph Fagan
It's a no cost bet with salvation (of some sort) as the prize!
Ah, the Occupied French bet -- both sides, eh?
Post by Joseph Fagan
Which sliver of an interpretation of "God exists" is most probably
true?
None, they are all beyond a reasonable doubt -- FALSE.
But for the sake of the academic discussion take a look anyway.

Certainly NOT any Theistic God-creature of Judaism, the sects of christianity,
Islam, etc.

So "Pascal's so called Wager" is a loser there. Which ONE of those DOZENS of
theistic " angry god - infidels burn in hell" religions are you going to lay
your
entire life on? Get it wrong, and you'll still burn in hell.
Post by Joseph Fagan
Is it the Creator?,
As in a Deist creator/god that, once having created everything no longer
tortures
and torments mankind for it's own sick personal amusement?

Well, there's absolutely no need for Pascal's "so called wager" in Deism,
since that creator/first-cause entity ain't going to send you to burn in
hellfire
for eternity, since there is no "theism" to follow, or reject. The
"creator/first-cause"
could give a flying fuck what any given creature in the universe thinks.
Post by Joseph Fagan
the individual God?..
Call him and ask -- 1-900-666-GOD1
Post by Joseph Fagan
Thanks
Joseph
FreeThink
2005-03-09 04:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
<snip>
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state the
obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with
atheism/theism. I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so stop slandering
me you
S.O.B.
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic? Even
though you probably won't listen, as an act of purist optimism I
will tell you anyway. I value truth. Even though there is just an
infinitesimal chance of a god concept existing, I still don't know
one way or the other. That must seem really strange to you, valuing
truth that much, huh?
Not an attack - I'm very interested in the response.
There being a very slim chance that God exists seperates (some)
agnostics from atheists - is this correct?
No, the concepts of Atheism and Agnosticism are orthogonal.
They aren't parallel or linear extensions/regression of one another.
They aren't even apples vs. oranges, it's more like apples vs. a Ford Pinto
Not according to the more recent definition of atheism. It has been
well known for a decade or longer. Since you are not aware of it I
suggest you read more on what you are trying to talk about before
posting anything else.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
So called Agnostics take themselves completely out of the debate
altogether, they quite the game by refusing to play in the first place.
Strawman.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
They claim is isn't possible <for man> to know God exists or doesn't.
Strawman.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
The vast majority of so called Agnostics made that choice to quite
the game after playing for a while, and after playing for a while
they inevitably and logically found themselves standing at the
"abyss"
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
(my pun) of atheism, and instead of taking the next logical step when
faced with no reasonable or logical proposition for god(s), they
turn tail and run, claiming -- "I'm not going to play the game
anymore,
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
It's not playable, too complex for man to comprehend, I'll sit
on the sidelines and let you Theists battle with the Atheists, then
like the Occupied French, I'll side with whomever is the winner in
the end". How quaint.
Not as annoying as an atheistic evangelist. Especially when you are
already defined as an atheist by anyone who keeps up on the topic.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
Why not take Pascal's Wager then?
It's a sucker's bet, like "insurance" against Dealer Blackjack at
the draw.
More analogies based on fear. More strawman assumptions. Try again. Or
even better, just slink away.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
It's a no cost bet with salvation (of some sort) as the prize!
Ah, the Occupied French bet -- both sides, eh?
Post by Joseph Fagan
Which sliver of an interpretation of "God exists" is most probably
true?
None, they are all beyond a reasonable doubt -- FALSE.
But for the sake of the academic discussion take a look anyway.
You know of all possible gods then? Forget about religion you
irrational freak.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Certainly NOT any Theistic God-creature of Judaism, the sects of christianity,
Islam, etc.
So "Pascal's so called Wager" is a loser there. Which ONE of those DOZENS of
theistic " angry god - infidels burn in hell" religions are you going to lay
your
entire life on? Get it wrong, and you'll still burn in hell.
Dozens? A god concept does not even need to be known by anyone.
Religion does not even have to enter the debate. I could also post a
very long list of diety concepts if you really want me to. I'm not
interested in wagering. Guilt, vindictiveness and fear may be your
issues but they are not mine.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
Is it the Creator?,
As in a Deist creator/god that, once having created everything no longer
tortures
and torments mankind for it's own sick personal amusement?
LOL! Well there is an objective statement. Continue to cry about how
life is unfair but don't pretend that it has something to do with the
discussion.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Well, there's absolutely no need for Pascal's "so called wager" in Deism,
since that creator/first-cause entity ain't going to send you to burn in
hellfire
for eternity, since there is no "theism" to follow, or reject. The
"creator/first-cause"
could give a flying fuck what any given creature in the universe thinks.
I'm neither a theist or deist idiot.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
the individual God?..
Call him and ask -- 1-900-666-GOD1
Post by Joseph Fagan
Thanks
Joseph
Your not welcome moron.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 08:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
<snip>
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state
the obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their spineless
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with
atheism/theism. I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so
stop slandering me you
S.O.B.
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic?
Even though you probably won't listen, as an act of purist
optimism I will tell you anyway. I value truth. Even though
there is just an infinitesimal chance of a god concept
existing, I still don't know one way or the other. That must
seem really strange to you, valuing truth that much, huh?
Not an attack - I'm very interested in the response.
There being a very slim chance that God exists seperates (some)
agnostics from atheists - is this correct?
No, the concepts of Atheism and Agnosticism are orthogonal.
They aren't parallel or linear extensions/regression of one another.
They aren't even apples vs. oranges, it's more like apples vs. a Ford Pinto
Not according to the more recent definition of atheism.
"THE" more recent definition of "atheism" ?

By whom? The Pope of the Atheist non-Church ?
Post by FreeThink
It has been
well known for a decade or longer. Since you are not aware of it I
suggest you read more on what you are trying to talk about before
posting anything else.
Catch a clue, newbie, English words, meanings and etymology
don't often get much simpler than the word/term A-theism.

Get it? A-Theism = without or lacking Theism

Now all you have to do is comprehend and understand what
exactly is "Theism", then throw it in the trashcan, and you're left
with A-Theism.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
So called Agnostics take themselves completely out of the debate
altogether, they quite the game by refusing to play in the first place.
Strawman.
Definitive.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
They claim is isn't possible <for man> to know God exists or
doesn't.
Strawman.
Definitive.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
The vast majority of so called Agnostics made that choice to quite
the game after playing for a while, and after playing for a while
they inevitably and logically found themselves standing at the
"abyss" (my pun) of atheism, and instead of taking the next logical
step when faced with no reasonable or logical proposition for
god(s), they turn tail and run, claiming -- "I'm not going to play
the game anymore, It's not playable, too complex for man to
comprehend, I'll sit
on the sidelines and let you Theists battle with the Atheists, then
like the Occupied French, I'll side with whomever is the winner in
the end". How quaint.
Not as annoying as an atheistic evangelist.
Nice one. Can we quote you on that in the future -- "atheistic evangelist"
That'll fit really nice in the Fundie Museum of Idiocies, alongside
"Atheism is a Religion" "Atheism is a Belief System" and "Atheism is Faith".
Post by FreeThink
Especially when you are already defined as an atheist by anyone who keeps up
on > the topic.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
Why not take Pascal's Wager then?
It's a sucker's bet, like "insurance" against Dealer Blackjack at
the draw.
More analogies based on fear.
Religion is fear based.
Post by FreeThink
More strawman assumptions.
"strawman assumptions" ?
What happen, you get hold of a thesaurus, run it through
the blender and just spit out whatever compound nonsensical
terms float to the top?
Post by FreeThink
Try again. Or even better, just slink away.
Why?
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
It's a no cost bet with salvation (of some sort) as the prize!
Ah, the Occupied French bet -- both sides, eh?
Post by Joseph Fagan
Which sliver of an interpretation of "God exists" is most probably
true?
None, they are all beyond a reasonable doubt -- FALSE.
But for the sake of the academic discussion take a look anyway.
You know of all possible gods then?
Tell me about them. Or tell me about some of them.
And I proceed to falsify each and every one --theistic or
deistic -- that you propose.
Post by FreeThink
Forget about religion you irrational freak.
Correct, religion is for irrational freaks.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Certainly NOT any Theistic God-creature of Judaism, the sects of
christianity, Islam, etc.
So "Pascal's so called Wager" is a loser there. Which ONE of those
DOZENS of theistic " angry god - infidels burn in hell" religions
are you going to lay your
entire life on? Get it wrong, and you'll still burn in hell.
Dozens? A god concept does not even need to be known by anyone.
??
Post by FreeThink
Religion does not even have to enter the debate.
Are you a completely clueless idiot, or do you just play
one on usenet? The debate at this point is about Pascal's
Wager. Now do tell us numbnuts how Religion doesn't
enter into Pascal's Wager.

Go ahead moron, tell us.
Post by FreeThink
I could also post a very long list of diety concepts if you really want me to.
Go ahead -- I'll refute and falsify each and every one of them.

Keep in mind that "Deistic" god-concepts don't factor in at
all to the discussion of Pascal's Wager.
Post by FreeThink
I'm not interested in wagering.
So why the fuck would you be discussing Pascal's Wager
then, idiot?
Post by FreeThink
Guilt, vindictiveness and fear may be your
issues but they are not mine.
Sure, whatever you say.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
Is it the Creator?,
As in a Deist creator/god that, once having created everything no
longer tortures and torments mankind for it's own sick personal amusement?
LOL! Well there is an objective statement. Continue to cry about how
life is unfair but don't pretend that it has something to do with the
discussion.
Care to utter a comprehensible phrase?
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Well, there's absolutely no need for Pascal's "so called wager" in
Deism, since that creator/first-cause entity ain't going to send
you to burn in hellfire
for eternity, since there is no "theism" to follow, or reject. The
"creator/first-cause"
could give a flying fuck what any given creature in the universe thinks.
I'm neither a theist or deist idiot.
But an idiot for sure, eh?
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
the individual God?..
Call him and ask -- 1-900-666-GOD1
Post by Joseph Fagan
Thanks
Joseph
Your not welcome moron.
English isn't your first language is it?
FreeThink
2005-03-09 08:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
<snip>
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to state
the obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their
spineless
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with
atheism/theism. I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so
stop slandering me you
S.O.B.
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic?
Even though you probably won't listen, as an act of purist
optimism I will tell you anyway. I value truth. Even though
there is just an infinitesimal chance of a god concept
existing, I still don't know one way or the other. That must
seem really strange to you, valuing truth that much, huh?
Not an attack - I'm very interested in the response.
There being a very slim chance that God exists seperates (some)
agnostics from atheists - is this correct?
No, the concepts of Atheism and Agnosticism are orthogonal.
They aren't parallel or linear extensions/regression of one another.
They aren't even apples vs. oranges, it's more like apples vs. a Ford Pinto
Not according to the more recent definition of atheism.
"THE" more recent definition of "atheism" ?
By whom? The Pope of the Atheist non-Church ?
Post by FreeThink
It has been
well known for a decade or longer. Since you are not aware of it I
suggest you read more on what you are trying to talk about before
posting anything else.
Catch a clue, newbie, English words, meanings and etymology
don't often get much simpler than the word/term A-theism.
Get it? A-Theism = without or lacking Theism
Now all you have to do is comprehend and understand what
exactly is "Theism", then throw it in the trashcan, and you're left
with A-Theism.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
So called Agnostics take themselves completely out of the debate
altogether, they quite the game by refusing to play in the first place.
Strawman.
Definitive.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
They claim is isn't possible <for man> to know God exists or doesn't.
Strawman.
Definitive.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
The vast majority of so called Agnostics made that choice to quite
the game after playing for a while, and after playing for a while
they inevitably and logically found themselves standing at the
"abyss" (my pun) of atheism, and instead of taking the next logical
step when faced with no reasonable or logical proposition for
god(s), they turn tail and run, claiming -- "I'm not going to play
the game anymore, It's not playable, too complex for man to
comprehend, I'll sit
on the sidelines and let you Theists battle with the Atheists, then
like the Occupied French, I'll side with whomever is the winner in
the end". How quaint.
Not as annoying as an atheistic evangelist.
Nice one. Can we quote you on that in the future -- "atheistic
evangelist"
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
That'll fit really nice in the Fundie Museum of Idiocies, alongside
"Atheism is a Religion" "Atheism is a Belief System" and "Atheism is Faith".
Post by FreeThink
Especially when you are already defined as an atheist by anyone who keeps up
on > the topic.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
Why not take Pascal's Wager then?
It's a sucker's bet, like "insurance" against Dealer Blackjack at
the draw.
More analogies based on fear.
Religion is fear based.
Post by FreeThink
More strawman assumptions.
"strawman assumptions" ?
What happen, you get hold of a thesaurus, run it through
the blender and just spit out whatever compound nonsensical
terms float to the top?
Post by FreeThink
Try again. Or even better, just slink away.
Why?
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
It's a no cost bet with salvation (of some sort) as the prize!
Ah, the Occupied French bet -- both sides, eh?
Post by Joseph Fagan
Which sliver of an interpretation of "God exists" is most probably
true?
None, they are all beyond a reasonable doubt -- FALSE.
But for the sake of the academic discussion take a look anyway.
You know of all possible gods then?
Tell me about them. Or tell me about some of them.
And I proceed to falsify each and every one --theistic or
deistic -- that you propose.
Post by FreeThink
Forget about religion you irrational freak.
Correct, religion is for irrational freaks.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Certainly NOT any Theistic God-creature of Judaism, the sects of
christianity, Islam, etc.
So "Pascal's so called Wager" is a loser there. Which ONE of those
DOZENS of theistic " angry god - infidels burn in hell" religions
are you going to lay your
entire life on? Get it wrong, and you'll still burn in hell.
Dozens? A god concept does not even need to be known by anyone.
??
Post by FreeThink
Religion does not even have to enter the debate.
Are you a completely clueless idiot, or do you just play
one on usenet? The debate at this point is about Pascal's
Wager. Now do tell us numbnuts how Religion doesn't
enter into Pascal's Wager.
Go ahead moron, tell us.
Post by FreeThink
I could also post a very long list of diety concepts if you really want me to.
Go ahead -- I'll refute and falsify each and every one of them.
Keep in mind that "Deistic" god-concepts don't factor in at
all to the discussion of Pascal's Wager.
Post by FreeThink
I'm not interested in wagering.
So why the fuck would you be discussing Pascal's Wager
then, idiot?
Post by FreeThink
Guilt, vindictiveness and fear may be your
issues but they are not mine.
Sure, whatever you say.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
Is it the Creator?,
As in a Deist creator/god that, once having created everything no
longer tortures and torments mankind for it's own sick personal amusement?
LOL! Well there is an objective statement. Continue to cry about how
life is unfair but don't pretend that it has something to do with the
discussion.
Care to utter a comprehensible phrase?
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Well, there's absolutely no need for Pascal's "so called wager" in
Deism, since that creator/first-cause entity ain't going to send
you to burn in hellfire
for eternity, since there is no "theism" to follow, or reject. The
"creator/first-cause"
could give a flying fuck what any given creature in the universe thinks.
I'm neither a theist or deist idiot.
But an idiot for sure, eh?
ROFL! You said I was not an atheist in the first post I responded to.
According to your above definition by my not being a theist in the
above line I am an atheist. You call me a fundie in this post and then
accept that I am not a theist here as well!

You really are pathetic. If you think I am going to chase you around
usenet all night while you post spam like a spastic child you can think
again.

I'm just going to dismiss you. So go ahead and throw "fundie-brained"
around a few more times or whatever spastic reaction you need to get in
the last word.

Alcoholism can be overcome.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 08:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
<snip>
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Agnostics are merely closeted atheists, too scared to
state the obvious, out of fear of public ostracism. Their
spineless position is more pathetic, IMHO, than the Swiss
took during WW2.
It is telling that you associate fear so mutually with
atheism/theism. I have no trouble saying I am an agnostic so
stop slandering me you
S.O.B.
Do you really want to hear the real reason I am an agnostic?
Even though you probably won't listen, as an act of purist
optimism I will tell you anyway. I value truth. Even though
there is just an infinitesimal chance of a god concept
existing, I still don't know one way or the other. That must
seem really strange to you, valuing truth that much, huh?
Not an attack - I'm very interested in the response.
There being a very slim chance that God exists seperates
(some) agnostics from atheists - is this correct?
No, the concepts of Atheism and Agnosticism are orthogonal.
They aren't parallel or linear extensions/regression of one
another. They aren't even apples vs. oranges, it's more like
apples vs. a Ford Pinto
Not according to the more recent definition of atheism.
"THE" more recent definition of "atheism" ?
By whom? The Pope of the Atheist non-Church ?
Post by FreeThink
It has been
well known for a decade or longer. Since you are not aware of it I
suggest you read more on what you are trying to talk about before
posting anything else.
Catch a clue, newbie, English words, meanings and etymology
don't often get much simpler than the word/term A-theism.
Get it? A-Theism = without or lacking Theism
Now all you have to do is comprehend and understand what
exactly is "Theism", then throw it in the trashcan, and you're left
with A-Theism.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
So called Agnostics take themselves completely out of the debate
altogether, they quite the game by refusing to play in the first place.
Strawman.
Definitive.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
They claim is isn't possible <for man> to know God exists or doesn't.
Strawman.
Definitive.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
The vast majority of so called Agnostics made that choice to
quite the game after playing for a while, and after playing for
a while they inevitably and logically found themselves standing
at the "abyss" (my pun) of atheism, and instead of taking the
next logical step when faced with no reasonable or logical
proposition for god(s), they turn tail and run, claiming --
"I'm not going to play the game anymore, It's not playable, too
complex for man to comprehend, I'll sit
on the sidelines and let you Theists battle with the Atheists,
then like the Occupied French, I'll side with whomever is the
winner in the end". How quaint.
Not as annoying as an atheistic evangelist.
Nice one. Can we quote you on that in the future -- "atheistic
evangelist" That'll fit really nice in the Fundie Museum of
Idiocies, alongside "Atheism is a Religion" "Atheism is a Belief
System" and "Atheism is Faith".
Post by FreeThink
Especially when you are already defined as an atheist by anyone
who keeps up on > the topic.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
Why not take Pascal's Wager then?
It's a sucker's bet, like "insurance" against Dealer Blackjack
at the draw.
More analogies based on fear.
Religion is fear based.
Post by FreeThink
More strawman assumptions.
"strawman assumptions" ?
What happen, you get hold of a thesaurus, run it through
the blender and just spit out whatever compound nonsensical
terms float to the top?
Post by FreeThink
Try again. Or even better, just slink away.
Why?
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
It's a no cost bet with salvation (of some sort) as the prize!
Ah, the Occupied French bet -- both sides, eh?
Post by Joseph Fagan
Which sliver of an interpretation of "God exists" is most
probably true?
None, they are all beyond a reasonable doubt -- FALSE.
But for the sake of the academic discussion take a look anyway.
You know of all possible gods then?
Tell me about them. Or tell me about some of them.
And I proceed to falsify each and every one --theistic or
deistic -- that you propose.
Post by FreeThink
Forget about religion you irrational freak.
Correct, religion is for irrational freaks.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Certainly NOT any Theistic God-creature of Judaism, the sects of
christianity, Islam, etc.
So "Pascal's so called Wager" is a loser there. Which ONE of
those DOZENS of theistic " angry god - infidels burn in hell"
religions are you going to lay your
entire life on? Get it wrong, and you'll still burn in hell.
Dozens? A god concept does not even need to be known by anyone.
??
Post by FreeThink
Religion does not even have to enter the debate.
Are you a completely clueless idiot, or do you just play
one on usenet? The debate at this point is about Pascal's
Wager. Now do tell us numbnuts how Religion doesn't
enter into Pascal's Wager.
Go ahead moron, tell us.
Post by FreeThink
I could also post a very long list of diety concepts if you really want me to.
Go ahead -- I'll refute and falsify each and every one of them.
Keep in mind that "Deistic" god-concepts don't factor in at
all to the discussion of Pascal's Wager.
Post by FreeThink
I'm not interested in wagering.
So why the fuck would you be discussing Pascal's Wager
then, idiot?
Post by FreeThink
Guilt, vindictiveness and fear may be your
issues but they are not mine.
Sure, whatever you say.
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Joseph Fagan
Is it the Creator?,
As in a Deist creator/god that, once having created everything
no longer tortures and torments mankind for it's own sick
personal amusement?
LOL! Well there is an objective statement. Continue to cry about
how life is unfair but don't pretend that it has something to do
with the discussion.
Care to utter a comprehensible phrase?
Post by FreeThink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Well, there's absolutely no need for Pascal's "so called wager"
in Deism, since that creator/first-cause entity ain't going to
send you to burn in hellfire
for eternity, since there is no "theism" to follow, or reject.
The "creator/first-cause"
could give a flying fuck what any given creature in the universe thinks.
I'm neither a theist or deist idiot.
But an idiot for sure, eh?
ROFL! You said I was not an atheist in the first post I responded to.
According to your above definition by my not being a theist in the
above line I am an atheist. You call me a fundie in this post and then
accept that I am not a theist here as well!
You really are pathetic. If you think I am going to chase you around
usenet all night while you post spam like a spastic child you can
think again.
I'm just going to dismiss you. So go ahead and throw "fundie-brained"
around a few more times or whatever spastic reaction you need to get
in the last word.
Oh goodie goodie, I have a new chew-toy !
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-08 06:39:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:52:46 -0700, "paul"
dictionary.com defines "religion" as: "A cause,
principle, or activity pursued with zeal or
conscientious devotion. "
So what?
i have read other definitions that claim that
"Religion" is "any belief system regarding the
creation of the
universe". the fact that it has been debated ad
nauseum does not change the fact that atheism is
a belief system that is pursued with zeal.
Why do you lie about atheism, liar?
atheism requires a leap of faith as much as any
God worshipping religion.
Why do you lie, liar?
It takes exaclty as much faith as not believing in
the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
wrong. and here's why. both atheism and theism are
leaps of faith
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And no matter how many times you
fundy imbeciles repeat it, it is still wrong.
ATHEISM is the antithesis of "faith". It means, quite
clearly and simply -- WITHOUT Theism.
It mean without -theism, which means without - a belief in
god.
(long irrelevant rant deleted)
Typical theistic religions are Zoroastrianism, Saivism,
Vaishnavism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í, and
Sikhism.
So atheism means you don't believe in any of those. Point
taken.
That is not the same as meaning without -faith. Our
disbelief in god is based on our faith in our own ability
to observe the
truth.
Naw. How about you pick ONE definition of your use of the
word "faith" in the context of this discussion and stick
with it. Here are your
(another long, irrelevant rant deleted)
In the context of this discussion, faith means believing
something that can't be proved,
Ok, that'll be the definition for this discussion. Now don't
vary, change, or conflate it.
Faith: belief in something that cannot be proven.
the point being that an atheist can't prove god
doesn't exist.
That ain't faith, acording to the definition you just
made.
Lets go through this, step-by-step, for the slow witted. Faith is
believing something that can't be proved.
That's what you claimed. Now watch as you switch tracks again,
falsely positing the converse.
Atheists *believe* God does not exist.
No, and no.
A-theists *do not beleive* god exists -- get it? They "don't
believe", lack belief, have NO FAITH necessary.
That would be an agnostic, who neither believes or disbelives in god.
You aren't the sharpest tack in the box, are you boy?

A-theists <do not believe> <= negated verb
in <god(s)> <= affirmed subject
An agnostic, correctly, says I don't know,
A-theists <do not believe> <= negated verb
in <god(s)> <= affirmed subject

See anything above about "gnosis" or "knowing" or A-gnosis ?

Do try and stay on point, fundie-brained nitwit.
because neither existence
nor non-existence can be proven. An atheist would not say that god
might exist, he is sure that god does not exist. In being sure, he
is believing something that cannot be proved.
The only thing here proved is that fundie-brained idiots like
you cannot tell the truth, cannot stay on point, change definitional
meaning more than you change underwear, and flat out lie in
a pathetic attempt to support your preposterous assertions.

Once again, slowly -- A-Theism = without theism
There, couldn't be simpler. All you have to
do is comprehend and understand what "theism" means,
then take that away, and viola! -- you're left with A-theism.
1) I'm certain god doesn't exist, no belief necessary.
How can you be certain? I don't think
There's your first problem.
god exists, but I could be
wrong. There is a world of difference between the two views. To be
certain requires a belief that cannot be proven.
Nope, there you go with your fundie-speak again. Words do have
meaning, and when common words are sometimes ambiguous in meaning,
it is necessary to agree on which meaning or what meaning will be ascribed
to them for the sake of a given debate or discussion. Typical Fundie-speak
involves dishonestly shifting and changing the meaning of words/concepts
within the same argument to arrive at their pre-determined conclusion.
You're just another
fundie.
2) "god does not exist" isn't a "something", it's a _nothing_
Wrong again
It's a negated object. Try some remedial English grammar.

Atheists <do not believe> <=negated verb
in <god(s)> <= affirmative object

Lying fundies will ALWAYS falsely claim and attribute the inverse of
this simple definition and fraudulently restate it as:

Atheist <believe> <= affirmative verb
in <no god(s)> <= negated object

Atheist DO *NOT BELIEVE* in <insert your proposed theism here>
So *your* original definition, supplied by you and agreed
upon by you, agreed that you wouldn't change it fundie-style
"Faith is believing _something_ that can't be proved. "
"God not existing" isn't a *something*, it's -- ipso facto -- a
nothing.
"God does not exist" is a statement of fact.
A fact is something.
So you admit that God not existing is a fact?
Glad we could agree on something.
Believing a fact is believing something.
And the non-existence of your God would have to be a fact
for your new weasel statement to be valid.
Looks like you are wrong again.
Looks like you just disproved your own premise.
Thanks for playing. Do try again sometime.
You illogical fundie-brained fools can't even follow your OWN
bullshit.
What you really hate is that you are just the mirror-image of the
fundies. You're just like them.
translation: you lost ... rather profoundly. What is humorous though is
you deny you're a fundie, yet you exhibit the same fundie-brained disease,
you argue disingenuously, you conflate and/or deliberately change agreed
upon terms and meanings, you fracture all accepted rules of logic, and you
bring zero facts to support your assertion. You're one of
the fundiest non-fundies ever to try and prove that Atheism is a "religion" ...
oooops, I mean "belief" ... no no I meant "faith" ... no what I meant was
"leap of faith" .... yeah, that's the ticket! -- oh yeah, Therefore God Exists!
Fenris
2005-03-09 01:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:52:46 -0700, "paul"
dictionary.com defines "religion" as: "A cause,
principle, or activity pursued with zeal or
conscientious devotion. "
So what?
i have read other definitions that claim that
"Religion" is "any belief system regarding the
creation of the
universe". the fact that it has been debated ad
nauseum does not change the fact that atheism is
a belief system that is pursued with zeal.
Why do you lie about atheism, liar?
atheism requires a leap of faith as much as any
God worshipping religion.
Why do you lie, liar?
It takes exaclty as much faith as not believing in
the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
wrong. and here's why. both atheism and theism are
leaps of faith
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And no matter how many times you
fundy imbeciles repeat it, it is still wrong.
ATHEISM is the antithesis of "faith". It means, quite
clearly and simply -- WITHOUT Theism.
It mean without -theism, which means without - a belief in
god.
(long irrelevant rant deleted)
Typical theistic religions are Zoroastrianism, Saivism,
Vaishnavism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í, and
Sikhism.
So atheism means you don't believe in any of those. Point
taken.
That is not the same as meaning without -faith. Our
disbelief in god is based on our faith in our own ability
to observe the
truth.
Naw. How about you pick ONE definition of your use of the
word "faith" in the context of this discussion and stick
with it. Here are your
(another long, irrelevant rant deleted)
In the context of this discussion, faith means believing
something that can't be proved,
Ok, that'll be the definition for this discussion. Now don't
vary, change, or conflate it.
Faith: belief in something that cannot be proven.
the point being that an atheist can't prove god
doesn't exist.
That ain't faith, acording to the definition you just
made.
Lets go through this, step-by-step, for the slow witted. Faith is
believing something that can't be proved.
That's what you claimed. Now watch as you switch tracks again,
falsely positing the converse.
Atheists *believe* God does not exist.
No, and no.
A-theists *do not beleive* god exists -- get it? They "don't
believe", lack belief, have NO FAITH necessary.
That would be an agnostic, who neither believes or disbelives in god.
You aren't the sharpest tack in the box, are you boy?
A-theists <do not believe> <= negated verb
in <god(s)> <= affirmed subject
An agnostic, correctly, says I don't know,
A-theists <do not believe> <= negated verb
in <god(s)> <= affirmed subject
See anything above about "gnosis" or "knowing" or A-gnosis ?
Do try and stay on point, fundie-brained nitwit.
because neither existence
nor non-existence can be proven. An atheist would not say that god
might exist, he is sure that god does not exist. In being sure, he
is believing something that cannot be proved.
The only thing here proved is that fundie-brained idiots like
you cannot tell the truth, cannot stay on point, change definitional
meaning more than you change underwear, and flat out lie in
a pathetic attempt to support your preposterous assertions.
Once again, slowly -- A-Theism = without theism
There, couldn't be simpler. All you have to
do is comprehend and understand what "theism" means,
then take that away, and viola! -- you're left with A-theism.
1) I'm certain god doesn't exist, no belief necessary.
How can you be certain? I don't think
There's your first problem.
god exists, but I could be
wrong. There is a world of difference between the two views. To be
certain requires a belief that cannot be proven.
Nope, there you go with your fundie-speak again. Words do have
meaning, and when common words are sometimes ambiguous in meaning,
it is necessary to agree on which meaning or what meaning will be ascribed
to them for the sake of a given debate or discussion. Typical Fundie-speak
involves dishonestly shifting and changing the meaning of words/concepts
within the same argument to arrive at their pre-determined conclusion.
You're just another
fundie.
2) "god does not exist" isn't a "something", it's a _nothing_
Wrong again
It's a negated object. Try some remedial English grammar.
Atheists <do not believe> <=negated verb
in <god(s)> <= affirmative object
Lying fundies will ALWAYS falsely claim and attribute the inverse of
Atheist <believe> <= affirmative verb
in <no god(s)> <= negated object
Atheist DO *NOT BELIEVE* in <insert your proposed theism here>
So *your* original definition, supplied by you and agreed
upon by you, agreed that you wouldn't change it fundie-style
"Faith is believing _something_ that can't be proved. "
"God not existing" isn't a *something*, it's -- ipso facto -- a
nothing.
"God does not exist" is a statement of fact.
A fact is something.
So you admit that God not existing is a fact?
Glad we could agree on something.
I admit nothing of the kind. I admit that you believe "God does not exist".
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Believing a fact is believing something.
And the non-existence of your God would have to be a fact
for your new weasel statement to be valid.
Not true. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Looks like you are wrong again.
Looks like you just disproved your own premise.
Thanks for playing. Do try again sometime.
You are pathetic, but sort of amusing.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
You illogical fundie-brained fools can't even follow your OWN
bullshit.
What you really hate is that you are just the mirror-image of the
fundies. You're just like them.
translation: you lost ... rather profoundly. What is humorous though is
you deny you're a fundie, yet you exhibit the same fundie-brained disease,
you argue disingenuously, you conflate and/or deliberately change agreed
upon terms and meanings, you fracture all accepted rules of logic, and you
bring zero facts to support your assertion. You're one of
the fundiest non-fundies ever to try and prove that Atheism is a "religion" ...
oooops, I mean "belief" ... no no I meant "faith" ... no what I meant was
"leap of faith" .... yeah, that's the ticket! -- oh yeah, Therefore God Exists!
Face it, you don't know what you mean. You couldn't find yourself with both
hands and a flashlight. Let me spell it out for you, lamewit. Atheism is
not a religion even though it is based on faith.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 07:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenris
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:52:46 -0700, "paul"
dictionary.com defines "religion" as: "A
cause, principle, or activity pursued with
zeal or conscientious devotion. "
So what?
i have read other definitions that claim that
"Religion" is "any belief system regarding the
creation of the
universe". the fact that it has been debated
ad nauseum does not change the fact that
atheism is a belief system that is pursued with zeal.
Why do you lie about atheism, liar?
atheism requires a leap of faith as much as
any God worshipping religion.
Why do you lie, liar?
It takes exaclty as much faith as not believing
in the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
wrong. and here's why. both atheism and theism
are leaps of faith
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And no matter how many times
you fundy imbeciles repeat it, it is still wrong.
ATHEISM is the antithesis of "faith". It means,
quite clearly and simply -- WITHOUT Theism.
It mean without -theism, which means without - a
belief in god.
(long irrelevant rant deleted)
Typical theistic religions are Zoroastrianism, Saivism,
Vaishnavism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í, and
Sikhism.
So atheism means you don't believe in any of those. Point
taken.
That is not the same as meaning without -faith. Our
disbelief in god is based on our faith in our own
ability to observe the
truth.
Naw. How about you pick ONE definition of your use of
the word "faith" in the context of this discussion and stick
with it. Here are your
(another long, irrelevant rant deleted)
In the context of this discussion, faith means believing
something that can't be proved,
Ok, that'll be the definition for this discussion. Now don't
vary, change, or conflate it.
Faith: belief in something that cannot be proven.
the point being that an atheist can't prove god
doesn't exist.
That ain't faith, acording to the definition you just
made.
Lets go through this, step-by-step, for the slow witted. Faith is
believing something that can't be proved.
That's what you claimed. Now watch as you switch tracks again,
falsely positing the converse.
Atheists *believe* God does not exist.
No, and no.
A-theists *do not beleive* god exists -- get it? They "don't
believe", lack belief, have NO FAITH necessary.
That would be an agnostic, who neither believes or disbelives in god.
You aren't the sharpest tack in the box, are you boy?
A-theists <do not believe> <= negated verb
in <god(s)> <= affirmed subject
An agnostic, correctly, says I don't know,
A-theists <do not believe> <= negated verb
in <god(s)> <= affirmed subject
See anything above about "gnosis" or "knowing" or A-gnosis ?
Do try and stay on point, fundie-brained nitwit.
because neither existence
nor non-existence can be proven. An atheist would not say that
god might exist, he is sure that god does not exist. In being sure,
he is believing something that cannot be proved.
The only thing here proved is that fundie-brained idiots like
you cannot tell the truth, cannot stay on point, change definitional
meaning more than you change underwear, and flat out lie in
a pathetic attempt to support your preposterous assertions.
Once again, slowly -- A-Theism = without theism
There, couldn't be simpler. All you have to
do is comprehend and understand what "theism" means,
then take that away, and viola! -- you're left with A-theism.
1) I'm certain god doesn't exist, no belief necessary.
How can you be certain? I don't think
There's your first problem.
god exists, but I could be
wrong. There is a world of difference between the two views. To
be certain requires a belief that cannot be proven.
Nope, there you go with your fundie-speak again. Words do have
meaning, and when common words are sometimes ambiguous in meaning,
it is necessary to agree on which meaning or what meaning will be
ascribed to them for the sake of a given debate or discussion.
Typical Fundie-speak involves dishonestly shifting and changing the
meaning of words/concepts within the same argument to arrive at
their pre-determined conclusion.
You're just another
fundie.
2) "god does not exist" isn't a "something", it's a _nothing_
Wrong again
It's a negated object. Try some remedial English grammar.
Atheists <do not believe> <=negated verb
in <god(s)> <= affirmative object
Lying fundies will ALWAYS falsely claim and attribute the inverse of
Atheist <believe> <= affirmative verb
in <no god(s)> <= negated object
Atheist DO *NOT BELIEVE* in <insert your proposed theism here>
So *your* original definition, supplied by you and agreed
upon by you, agreed that you wouldn't change it fundie-style
"Faith is believing _something_ that can't be proved. "
"God not existing" isn't a *something*, it's -- ipso facto -- a
nothing.
"God does not exist" is a statement of fact.
A fact is something.
So you admit that God not existing is a fact?
Glad we could agree on something.
I admit nothing of the kind. I admit that you believe "God does not exist".
You stated, and I quote:

""God does not exist" is a statement of fact."

So? Is it or isn't it a factual statement?
Post by Fenris
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Believing a fact is believing something.
And the non-existence of your God would have to be a fact
for your new weasel statement to be valid.
Not true. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.
For your semanticly twisted argument it would have to be,
otherwise it would be *nothing*, and *nothing* isn't *something*.
Post by Fenris
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Looks like you are wrong again.
Looks like you just disproved your own premise.
Thanks for playing. Do try again sometime.
You are pathetic, but sort of amusing.
Sez the fundie-brain who loses the argument even
after lying, reversing definitions, and fallaciously
perverting the rules of logical debate.
Post by Fenris
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
You illogical fundie-brained fools can't even follow your OWN
bullshit.
What you really hate is that you are just the mirror-image of the
fundies. You're just like them.
translation: you lost ... rather profoundly. What is humorous
though is you deny you're a fundie, yet you exhibit the same
fundie-brained disease, you argue disingenuously, you conflate
and/or deliberately change agreed upon terms and meanings, you
fracture all accepted rules of logic, and you bring zero facts to
support your assertion. You're one of the fundiest non-fundies ever to try
and prove that Atheism is a
"religion" ...
oooops, I mean "belief" ... no no I meant "faith" ... no what I
meant was "leap of faith" .... yeah, that's the ticket! -- oh yeah,
Therefore God Exists!
Face it, you don't know what you mean. You couldn't find yourself
with both hands and a flashlight. Let me spell it out for you,
lamewit. Atheism is not a religion even though it is based on faith.
I'm glad we agree that - Atheism is not a religion (though some fundie-brain
is likely to claim so in the near future). That's settled then, Atheism is NOT
a religion. Done.

Now lets go over your lingering mistake once again:

A-theism is not a faith, nor is it based on faith.
Atheism is the absence of faith -- by DEFINITION.
Get it? The definition of Atheism is one who does NOT BELIEVE.
That is the lexical, philosophical and contextual definition of Atheism.


No amount of fundy lying, foot stomping, or inane repetetive chanting
will change that
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-08 07:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Yep. Because I lambasted him about ridiculing Christians.
Kind of hypocritical, seeing as you intended to do just that to me.
You have it coming - not because you are a Christian, but because you
claim to be one but don't act like one. That and you're just an
incorrigible asshole - something that has nothing to do with your
faith (or lack of same), and everything to do with you making poor
choices in your daily life.
You're Yin to his Yang. You are two sides of the same coin -
both repugnantly intolerant, both narrow-minded fools.
Aw, don't be pissy
Not being pissy - just observant.
you insufferable waffler
What have I waffled on?
it must be maddening never to be able to make up your mind about
what is and isn't.
Except that you are not describing my state of mind in the least. "Making up
one's mind" implies that one is spending time pondering a
question and weighing options. On the question of the existence of
God - I do neither. If it's any help, I have decided that I am not a
Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, a Wiccan, or even a
Unitarian Universalist (though that particular organized religion has
definite appeal and includes many agnostics and even atheists). I do
continue to ponder whether some form of spirituality is or ever will
be relevant in my life, although currently the answer is definitively
"not now".
Yep, like I said -- a closeted Atheist too scared to come out.
Thanks for your concern. If you really are interested in spiritual
growth, it would benefit you and anyone who has the misfortune to
share your breathing space if you would work on your own.
-Jeff
Sam Bam
2005-03-08 17:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Yep. Because I lambasted him about ridiculing Christians.
Kind of hypocritical, seeing as you intended to do just that to me.
You have it coming - not because you are a Christian, but because you
claim to be one but don't act like one. That and you're just an
incorrigible asshole - something that has nothing to do with your
faith (or lack of same), and everything to do with you making poor
choices in your daily life.
You're Yin to his Yang. You are two sides of the same coin -
both repugnantly intolerant, both narrow-minded fools.
Aw, don't be pissy
Not being pissy - just observant.
you insufferable waffler
What have I waffled on?
it must be maddening never to be able to make up your mind about
what is and isn't.
Except that you are not describing my state of mind in the least. "Making up
one's mind" implies that one is spending time pondering a
question and weighing options. On the question of the existence of
God - I do neither. If it's any help, I have decided that I am not a
Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, a Wiccan, or even a
Unitarian Universalist (though that particular organized religion has
definite appeal and includes many agnostics and even atheists). I do
continue to ponder whether some form of spirituality is or ever will
be relevant in my life, although currently the answer is definitively
"not now".
Yep, like I said -- a closeted Atheist too scared to come out.
Sure looks that way...
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 22:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Bam
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Yep. Because I lambasted him about ridiculing Christians.
Kind of hypocritical, seeing as you intended to do just that to me.
You have it coming - not because you are a Christian, but because
you claim to be one but don't act like one. That and you're just an
incorrigible asshole - something that has nothing to do with your
faith (or lack of same), and everything to do with you making poor
choices in your daily life.
You're Yin to his Yang. You are two sides of the same coin -
both repugnantly intolerant, both narrow-minded fools.
Aw, don't be pissy
Not being pissy - just observant.
you insufferable waffler
What have I waffled on?
it must be maddening never to be able to make up your mind about
what is and isn't.
Except that you are not describing my state of mind in the least.
"Making up one's mind" implies that one is spending time
pondering a question and weighing options. On the question of the
existence
of God - I do neither. If it's any help, I have decided that I am
not a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, a Wiccan, or
even a Unitarian Universalist (though that particular organized religion
has definite appeal and includes many agnostics and even
atheists). I do continue to ponder whether some form of
spirituality is or ever will be relevant in my life, although currently
the answer is
definitively "not now".
Yep, like I said -- a closeted Atheist too scared to come out.
Sure looks that way...
Only a step or two higher on the Totem Pole of loathsomeness
than you and your grotesque, repugnant superstition.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 07:24:04 UTC
Permalink
It takes NO FAITH to say that there is no God.
I don't agree. I believe that it takes the same level of faith to
say that there is a God as it takes to say that there is not a God.
Which is why you cannot carry on a discussion or debate about
Atheism -- you won't even agree on the lexical or philosophical
definition of the word, because to do so eviscerates your contradictory
premise.

You might as well argue that a Capybara is a Fish.
From the perspective of the faithful, it seems that it does
I am not among the faithful.
Nor the logical.
-Jeff
Virgil
2005-03-09 07:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
It takes NO FAITH to say that there is no God.
I don't agree. I believe that it takes the same level of faith to
say that there is a God as it takes to say that there is not a God.
Which is why you cannot carry on a discussion or debate about
Atheism -- you won't even agree on the lexical or philosophical
definition of the word, because to do so eviscerates your contradictory
premise.
You might as well argue that a Capybara is a Fish.
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does not
take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't know".

And since there is no evidence either way...
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 08:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virgil
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
It takes NO FAITH to say that there is no God.
I don't agree. I believe that it takes the same level of faith to
say that there is a God as it takes to say that there is not a God.
Which is why you cannot carry on a discussion or debate about
Atheism -- you won't even agree on the lexical or philosophical
definition of the word, because to do so eviscerates your
contradictory premise.
You might as well argue that a Capybara is a Fish.
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does
not take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't
know".
Not true at all, just another silly fundie tautology.
Post by Virgil
And since there is no evidence either way...
There's no evidence for "god" ?

Hell, you can't even define or ascribe any elements to
the concept, how could there be evidence to that which
you don't define?
wcb
2005-03-09 09:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Virgil
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
It takes NO FAITH to say that there is no God.
I don't agree. I believe that it takes the same level of faith to
say that there is a God as it takes to say that there is not a God.
Which is why you cannot carry on a discussion or debate about
Atheism -- you won't even agree on the lexical or philosophical
definition of the word, because to do so eviscerates your
contradictory premise.
You might as well argue that a Capybara is a Fish.
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does
not take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't
know".
Not true at all, just another silly fundie tautology.
Post by Virgil
And since there is no evidence either way...
There's no evidence for "god" ?
Hell, you can't even define or ascribe any elements to
the concept, how could there be evidence to that which
you don't define?
Its easy to deal with.
God is well defined by theologians.

Virgil, being totally intellectually dishonest to an
extreme ignores it and ignores the fact that this god
can easily be denuked.

The thing to note here is, this is a set of definitions
that is overarching ad open ended so almost all subdefinitons
of god fit within teh maximal claims.

God is that that nothing greater can be concieved of for example.
God is al powerful, nothing is more powerful than god.

Once THIS god self destructs due to its own internal
inconsistancies, it cannot be replaced. Obviously.
You can only step down to a lessor definition of god.

This is one of those deep little truths Virgil refuses
to deal with. Because of his deep intellectual inadequacies and
intellectual dishonesties.

When we take out the maximal god, we take out any maximal
concpets of god(s) too. Not a specific god or specific
definition of god, but any and all maximalist possible gods.

This leaves you with myth gods. Which can be dealt with
usually by showing the claims made for them are false.
Thus archeaology debunks the bible as being history.
God inbedded in these myths as a character also is thus
debunked.

No exodus, no invasion of Canaan? No god
on the mount with Moses, no miracles, no god as a pillar
of smoke leading the Israeites by day.

And we can't revert to old fashioned nature gods,
such as the Greek view that stars and planets were
living deities. Or we needed gods to explain rain and
to make the sun shine. Science has removed any
room for any of that.

Science has managed to explain most anything you want
without and supernaturalism, there is no such ting,
and thus no room there for gods any more.
We no longer see demons under every leaf.

Really, we have large classes of gods, and get rid of
a class, and all possible gods of that class are debunked.

Strong Atheism is not hard. agnosticism thake the hit along
with religion.

Virgil, hit over teh head by hard evidnece at least 100
times this year, shamefacedly refuses to deal with my
arguments at all, much less honestly.

He is one of the most thoroughly cowardly, intellectually
and personally dishonest men on the net.
Because he keeps reasserting his debunked claim.

Again and again and again.

He is no different from the fundy who claims no
contradictions can be found in the bible and ignores
anybody who posts many and simply repeats his lies.

And does not find total dishonesty at all distasteful.
--
Cheerful Charlie
GregC
2005-03-09 09:55:58 UTC
Permalink
wcb wrote:

(snip)
Post by wcb
Science has managed to explain most anything you want
without and supernaturalism, there is no such ting,
and thus no room there for gods any more.
We no longer see demons under every leaf.
Really, we have large classes of gods, and get rid of
a class, and all possible gods of that class are debunked.
Strong Atheism is not hard. agnosticism thake the hit along
with religion.
Virgil, hit over teh head by hard evidnece at least 100
times this year, shamefacedly refuses to deal with my
arguments at all, much less honestly.
He is one of the most thoroughly cowardly, intellectually
and personally dishonest men on the net.
Because he keeps reasserting his debunked claim.
Again and again and again.
He is no different from the fundy who claims no
contradictions can be found in the bible and ignores
anybody who posts many and simply repeats his lies.
And does not find total dishonesty at all distasteful.
Most theists I know aren't arrogant enough
to insist that they've proven that a god
exists. Most of them say it's a matter of
faith. I find it amusing when so called
"intelligent" atheists insist that they've
proven a god can not possibly exist. Many
of you about piss your pants bitching about
how intolerent theists are, all the while
insisting that even so much as claiming to
be an agnostic is intellectual dishonesty.

Fundamentalists of any ilk all about stink
the same, and are equally distasteful.
Christopher A. Lee
2005-03-09 12:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by GregC
Post by wcb
He is no different from the fundy who claims no
contradictions can be found in the bible and ignores
anybody who posts many and simply repeats his lies.
And does not find total dishonesty at all distasteful.
Most theists I know aren't arrogant enough
to insist that they've proven that a god
exists. Most of them say it's a matter of
faith. I find it amusing when so called
"intelligent" atheists insist that they've
proven a god can not possibly exist. Many
of you about piss your pants bitching about
how intolerent theists are, all the while
insisting that even so much as claiming to
be an agnostic is intellectual dishonesty.
I find people like you who lie about atheists to be the ones with the
intellectual dishonesty.

You liars always omit the reasons strong a theists say there isn't a
god.

Like dishonestly pretending that it cannot be concluded when what the
theist describes is a logical impossibility.

Or dishonestly pretending that it is not an obvious conclusion when
each and every theist who has tried to give evidence for it has
resorted to diversions, copouts, fallacies etc, being a data point
against it with zero, zip, zilch, nada for it.

And why lie about the atheist view of agnostics? Too many agnostics
attack atheists for holding a position they don't have, while
screaming how open-minded they are. At the same time giving an
undeserved special status to deity which they don't grant anything
else.
Post by GregC
Fundamentalists of any ilk all about stink
the same, and are equally distasteful.
Especially fundamentalist agnostics.
Nico Demusopelous
2005-03-09 22:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You liars always omit the reasons strong a theists say
there isn't a god.
Like dishonestly pretending that it cannot be concluded
when what the theist describes is a logical impossibility.
If a particular theist (or collection of theists) puts forth a claim
about a specific deity, and the description of this deity is logically
incoherent, that is not a justification for strong atheism (i.e. the
position that no deities exist).

For example, suppose I claim to believe in a deity that is both X and
not-X at the exact same time. Does that justify the position "there are
no deities"? Of course it doesn't.
wcb
2005-03-10 00:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You liars always omit the reasons strong a theists say
there isn't a god.
Like dishonestly pretending that it cannot be concluded
when what the theist describes is a logical impossibility.
If a particular theist (or collection of theists) puts forth a claim
about a specific deity, and the description of this deity is logically
incoherent, that is not a justification for strong atheism (i.e. the
position that no deities exist).
I have put forth strong claims. Not against a specific
god, but a class of god. The omni-everything god.
The god of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism.

Not a specific god at all. This god is logicaly incoherent
and that dooms that sort of god as a viable concept.

The problem is, this maximalist god cannot stand, it is indeed self
destructive. And being a maximalist god couched in general overall
langauge in an open ended fashion to take in any good quality you wish
to descibe, it manages thus to take out any species
of maximalist god.

You can't enlarge the claims for god because they are so
maximized now there is nothing to add.
This is not the doing of Atheists, but of theologians trying
to put god beyond disproof and doubt.

And it doesn't work.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
For example, suppose I claim to believe in a deity that is both X and
not-X at the exact same time. Does that justify the position "there are
no deities"? Of course it doesn't.
But if by doing so you not only debunk deities Yahweh,
Atman, God and Allah, and any sort of maximalist god
in specific or general you have something.

The theologians maximalist god cannot exist, not even in
principle.

The problem is, there is no place to retreat to.
You can't step down. We no longer have room for old
fashioned nature gods. This god causes it to rain, that
to make the sun shine. Prey to ceres doesn't make the wheat
fields grow, irrigation and fertilizer do.

The maximalist god has failed. It cannot exist.
Its internal contradictions between its omni-attributes dooms
the very concept, which is kept vague to avoid specific
criticisms.

And with no place to go to from there that makes any sort
of sense, there are no place for gods at all.

And lessor gods canbe debunked on any number or grounds besides,
notthat it matters. This all became quite obvious 2000
years ago when paganism started dying. It is not satisfactory.
It doesn't fit reality.

God disproved.

By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the
most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator
of all. This god is defined as being intelligent,
having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically
to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?

2. That really asks the question, does god create the rules,
the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus
can change them at a whim, or for a reason?

3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.

4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.

5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.

6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so,god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.

7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.

8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable.

9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.

10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god himself
may not do evil, but that this does not mean god is not
omnipotent, because it is god's nature to be good.
Thus they do not account this inability to do evil
as limiting god's free will either. Thus the idea of
man being unable to do evil should likewise not be
allowed as an argument, if they refuse to apply the
same standards and reasoning to god, that would be
special pleading.

11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by
theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing
evil,evil is necessary to allow for free will,
but that dodge is not acceptale in a world where
man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing
moral evil is impossible. It can't be used here.

12. God is said to be the most pwerful thing that can
be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make teh laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.

13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these are all
thus falsified.

14. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.

15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.

16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because
he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.

17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. he either camnnot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent.

18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.

19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.

20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems
pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue
using a failed methodology, making empty assertions,
special pleading, double standards and failing to
adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting
assertions not proven one way or another and in
the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all
together with rhetorical questions "How can limited
man hope to understand an infinte god?". These
sorts of statments are simply indications that the
person in question is not going to be rational or
reasonable or change his or her mind faced with
facts.

21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all
expectations of respect for one's claims, that
person has abandoned reason and intellectual
honesty for obscurantism and superstition.

22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?

23. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws ofthe Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycsm chemisty, astronomy and other
sciences.

24. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for dissembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.

25. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
Much less the Grand God of theological tradition.

26. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing so, since
as demonstrated above, that is a failure as a
methodology.

27. At early times, man had no notion of a supernatural
versus a natural worl, but as the idea of a natural
world has evolved, the idea of a supernatual world
has faded away. All is seen to be a natural world
of matter, energy, physics, no sign of supernatural
worlds or entities can be found.

28. All claims thus based on the idea a supernatural
world or entities might exist are unproven, and
it is the burden of anyone making such a claim
to prove such a thing does in fact exist, before
attempting to use claims of the existance of a
supernatural realm as a theoretical bassis for
existance of god. And by prove, I mean to produce
good, hard evidencefor such a supernatural world,
not assertions that may or may not be true.
This is the failed theological methodology and is
no longer acceptable.

24. There is a difference between making theoretical
claims a god may exist, and actually showing hard
evidence a god exists. Claiming god exists based
on deeper unproven assertions, existance of a
supernatural world, is not acceptable as evidence.
One may not stack up mere assertions and claim it
is hard evidence. Arranging assertions in a manner
that proof or disproof is impossible because it
involves a general disproof of a negative is not
acceptable as a methodology for providing hard
evidence of a god.

25. Since to save god's omni-benevolence, one must
admit that god did not create the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe, we know that these things
are beyond and outside god. But theology cannot
tell us we what these things are,and where they come
from. Since these things must limit god, failure to
be able to tell us anything about these laws and rules
in the setting of theological claims about god, this
means until theology handles this honestly and
adequately, theology cannot tell us anything about
god, even theoretically.

26. Theology must do this if it is to make further
claims about god in an attempt to save the concept
of god by making further assertions or claims.
One cannot describe god apart from a world in which
god must operate and exist with existing features
preceeding and outside and limiting or constraining
any possible god.

27. Possible alternative gods.
A believer might criticize this as it does not
disprove all types of gods, but, as this does
disprovethe dogmatic god of major religous systems,
that claim does not saves this god. And indeed it
is possible to disprove other god concepts.

28. Example, older Roman and Greek religions and
numerous other older polytheistic ancient religions
were basically built on the idea of nature gods,
that these gods are responsible for features
of the world, for rainfall, fertility of wives,
cattle and fields, for important activities like
growing wheat. But today, science explains these
things without any signs of a god or any other
supernatural entities or phenomenon being found,
and technology has solved many of the problems
that prompted creation of such gods that were
created in hopes offinding some force to propitiate
to assure success in agriculture, producing offspring
and avoiding or curing sickness and ill health.
These gods are thus failed and disprovable and
were so disproven and abandoned by most mankind
some 2000 years ago.

29. Other basic ideas about gods were explored long
ago by Greek thinkers and the basic claims are
similar to the Judeo-Christian theological god
and suceptible to similar disconfirmations.
stoic and neo-Platonist thinkers long wrestled
with these problems. Epicurus noted the problem
of evil long before Christianity. Stoics tried
to explain things by positing all is matter but
souls and gods and such are made of a finer grade
of matter. Which ideas are based on unproven claims
of doubtful nature and are thus disprovable.
These systems also created impossible contradictions,
argumenst about pre-destination vs free will that
were never solved when Christianiy overtook them
and left these arguments unresolved, as these
religions faded away.

30. Other arguments, an imminent god versus a
transcedent god, god beyond and outside of time,
a world that does not exist outside the mind of god
and other variations and kinds of gods introduce
a rich soure of further debunkable claims.

31. Example: a god outside of time sees the world
differently from us as a one big now without actual
past nor future. Thus god see the future and can
know the future with exactitude. But such a god
that interacts with the world is part of it, at
such a point that he so acts, the world and god
are frozen in the big now of the Universe, god
thus is frozen embedded in the Universe and thus
like us, has no free will. All is determined
strongly and already is. Since theology demands
god has free will dogmatically, this god out of time
claim must be false.

32. Finally, any empty assertion, unproven, is only that,
unproven. Many claims made for god are just that.
Merely pointing this out when appropriate is the
equivalent of showing that claim is not acceptable
because if is not backed by hard evidence it is true.
Gods based on mere assertions and related concepts
based on mere assertions cannot be said to be true
and are disproven by pointing out they are based
solely on unproven or unprovable or unlikely
assertions.

End
--
Cheerful Charlie
Christopher A. Lee
2005-03-10 00:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You liars always omit the reasons strong a theists say
there isn't a god.
Like dishonestly pretending that it cannot be concluded
when what the theist describes is a logical impossibility.
If a particular theist (or collection of theists) puts forth a claim
about a specific deity, and the description of this deity is logically
incoherent, that is not a justification for strong atheism (i.e. the
position that no deities exist).
Notice the troll's dishonest bait'n'switch from my "logical
impossibility" to his strawman "incoherence is not a justification for
strong atheism"?

If I had meant that I would have said it. But I didn't. I said
"logical impossibility" and I meant "logical impossibility".

And he still ignore the fact that it's no different than "there ain't
no Santa Claus".

And the dishonest troll also ignored the point about all the data
points against and none for, leading to a rather obvious conclusion.
Virgil
2005-03-10 03:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You liars always omit the reasons strong a theists say
there isn't a god.
Like dishonestly pretending that it cannot be concluded
when what the theist describes is a logical impossibility.
If a particular theist (or collection of theists) puts forth a claim
about a specific deity, and the description of this deity is logically
incoherent, that is not a justification for strong atheism (i.e. the
position that no deities exist).
Notice the troll's dishonest bait'n'switch from my "logical
impossibility" to his strawman "incoherence is not a justification for
strong atheism"?
If I had meant that I would have said it. But I didn't. I said
"logical impossibility" and I meant "logical impossibility".
Then you are logically wrong. Logic by itself can say nothing about
reality.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And he still ignore the fact that it's no different than "there ain't
no Santa Claus".
And the dishonest troll
After such an ad hominem, whatever follows is irrelevant to logical
argument.
wcb
2005-03-10 13:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You liars always omit the reasons strong a theists say
there isn't a god.
Like dishonestly pretending that it cannot be concluded
when what the theist describes is a logical impossibility.
If a particular theist (or collection of theists) puts forth a claim
about a specific deity, and the description of this deity is logically
incoherent, that is not a justification for strong atheism (i.e. the
position that no deities exist).
Notice the troll's dishonest bait'n'switch from my "logical
impossibility" to his strawman "incoherence is not a justification for
strong atheism"?
Incoherence is definitely part of it.
If a claimed attribute, omnipotence is shown to be
essentially incoherent as a concept and meaningless, any god
that is claimed to be omnipotent inherits incoherence
as part of its attributes.

Many of these attributes together become as a whole,
incoherent and quite literally, nonsensical.

These things don't even get up to the point of logical
impossibility.

Can god create a rock so big he can't lift it?
No matter how you answer yes or no, the whole
question subverts omnipotence into an incoherent
concept with no real meaning at all.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If I had meant that I would have said it. But I didn't. I said
"logical impossibility" and I meant "logical impossibility".
And he still ignore the fact that it's no different than "there ain't
no Santa Claus".
And the dishonest troll also ignored the point about all the data
points against and none for, leading to a rather obvious conclusion.
--
Cheerful Charlie
ScotMc
2005-03-10 11:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
For example, suppose I claim to believe in a deity that is both X and
not-X at the exact same time. Does that justify the position "there are
no deities"? Of course it doesn't.
Of course not. However, it does justify the position that the specific
deity
does not exist.

Let's look at the problem of induction for a sec... Here is one of the
classic examples. "All swans are white".
If you have only ever seen swans that are white, it seems somewhat
reasonable to induce that all swans are white. But that is the problem
with induction. If you ever see a black swan, you conclusion is blown.
Until you see a black swan, your conclusion is really quite reasonable.

Here is another example of induction: the "law of gravity".
We induce that because gravity works everytime and everywhere that we see,
gravity also works everywhere else, (and for all of time).
But that suffers from the problem of induction as well. But, if my memory
serves me correctly, Stephen Jay Gould had something like this to
say about it:
Gravity is proven only to the extent that everytime I drop my pen it
falls.
Someday my pen might not fall but until that happens the possibility
doesn't deserve time in a physics classroom.


Now... back to inducing the non-existence of God.
Once, you have investigated enough claims of God and they have
all turned out false, it is quite reasonable to conclude that ALL
claims of God will be false.

Have a look at
http://alex.edfac.usyd.edu.au/methods/science/Ten%20myths%20of%20Science%20(McComas)
"Ten Myths of Science"

Myth 4: Evidence Accumulated Carefully Will Result in Sure Knowledge
All investigators, including scientists, collect and interpret empirical
evidence through the process called induction. This is a technique
by which individual pieces of evidence are collected and examined
until a law is discovered or a theory is invented. Useful as this technique
is, even a preponderance of evidence does not guarantee the production
of valid knowledge because of what is called the problem of induction.
Nico Demusopelous
2005-03-10 20:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ScotMc
Post by Nico Demusopelous
For example, suppose I claim to believe in a deity that is both X and
not-X at the exact same time. Does that justify the position "there are
no deities"? Of course it doesn't.
Of course not. However, it does justify the position that the specific
deity does not exist.
I agree.
Post by ScotMc
Let's look at the problem of induction for a sec... Here is one of the
classic examples. "All swans are white".
If you have only ever seen swans that are white, it seems somewhat
reasonable to induce that all swans are white. But that is the problem
with induction. If you ever see a black swan, you conclusion is blown.
Until you see a black swan, your conclusion is really quite
reasonable.

Again, I agree. A conclusion reached via induction can never be
demonstrated to be true beyond all doubt, however a single instance is
needed to discredit the conclusion. Issues of corroboration and
falsification I suppose...

Way off subject (i.e. admittedly unrelated), I would note that if I
asserted that all swans are white...

(x) Sx --> Wx

...and you brought forth a black swan, if I presupposed the truth of my
statement, I could say "well, that's not really a swan...". Again, I'm
not sure how this is relevant...
Post by ScotMc
Now... back to inducing the non-existence of God.
Once, you have investigated enough claims of God and they have
all turned out false, it is quite reasonable to conclude that ALL
claims of God will be false.
I would agree this is a possible conclusion, though maybe the better
conclusion (i.e. the safer induction) would be "if there is a God,
theists are incapable of accurately describing it"...
wcb
2005-03-11 11:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by wcb
Post by ScotMc
Post by Nico Demusopelous
For example, suppose I claim to believe in a deity that is both X
and
Post by ScotMc
Post by Nico Demusopelous
not-X at the exact same time. Does that justify the position "there
are
Post by ScotMc
Post by Nico Demusopelous
no deities"? Of course it doesn't.
Of course not. However, it does justify the position that the
specific
Post by ScotMc
deity does not exist.
I agree.
Post by ScotMc
Let's look at the problem of induction for a sec... Here is one of
the
Post by ScotMc
classic examples. "All swans are white".
If you have only ever seen swans that are white, it seems somewhat
reasonable to induce that all swans are white. But that is the
problem
Post by ScotMc
with induction. If you ever see a black swan, you conclusion is
blown.
Post by ScotMc
Until you see a black swan, your conclusion is really quite
reasonable.
Again, I agree. A conclusion reached via induction can never be
demonstrated to be true beyond all doubt, however a single instance is
needed to discredit the conclusion. Issues of corroboration and
falsification I suppose...
In the case of god, we have the case that with christian
theology, god has been defined in a manner that attempts
to create and open ended definition that claims all
possible desirable qualities.
God is perfect and from gods perfectio we can derive
all subperfections, such as omnipotence. From qualities
like omnipotence we can derive sub-attributes.
Omniscience, for example. From god's perfection, one
can derive omnibenevolence.

This maximalist god concept thus encompasses any sort of
maximalist god imaginable, no matter why sort of name you
may want to give this god, Allah, Jehova, Atman, Jupiter,
God almighty.

Its not a god, its a concept that encompasses all possible
maximalist gods.

The problem is, this maximalist god concept fails miserably.
The various maximalist claims, omnibenevolence, omnipotence,
omniscience, creatorship of all that exists. Soon contradict
each other and destroy this generalist maximal god concept.

By pointing to these problems, we not only get rid of specific
gods, Allah, the biblical God, Yahweh, we get rid of any god that
claims to fit this category. We are not getting rid of specific
gods, but an entire class of claimed gods.


Example, god creates all, is omniscient and is omnibenevolent.

If god contemplates creating a world, being omniscient,
he knows if there is a John Smith in the future and if
Smith is good or evil. Such a god has achoice to include such
a Smith in his creation and if Smith is good or evil.
Since god makes the choice to include an evil or good Smith,
there is no free will, not even in principle. God
makes al decisions as to what this world he creates contains.
Smith makes no choice to be good or evil, god made that choice
from the beginning.

But god is supposedly omnibenevolent, all good. Since
all moral evil in this universe is gods creation, god creates
evil and is therefore evil.

This does not fit the description of god as omnibenevlent.
Thus a god that is omnipotent, creator of all and omnibenevolent
canot exist.

This takes out all possible gods of this maximalist type.
In this case, no matter what other claims you make for them.
So far the only wat theology has been able to dodge this
is to pretend man has free will and thus is responsible
for evil, not god.

Ignoring god's evil acts in the bible, this is false
because there is no free will even in principle, since
god makes all choices as to what will exist in the universe.

So by showing various contradictions like this we are not
taking out a specific god, but the entire class of maximalist
gods.

Thus agnosticism falls also in the case of maximalist gods.
A god that is omni this or that, creator of all.

This is not a matter of induction, its a matter of seeing
that claimed attributes of maximalist gods destroy all
possibilties of maximalist gods.

Gods, if they exist, must be of a very lessor nature.
And lessor gods are also very vulnerable to Atheist
critiques.
Post by wcb
Way off subject (i.e. admittedly unrelated), I would note that if I
asserted that all swans are white...
(x) Sx --> Wx
...and you brought forth a black swan, if I presupposed the truth of my
statement, I could say "well, that's not really a swan...". Again, I'm
not sure how this is relevant...
If one defins swans, and one shows that definition
is contradictory and swans cannot exist, black swans
and white swans are ruled out.

Maximalist gods are this sort of thing. Since
the whole class of maximalist gods cannot exist, a specific
maximalist god of a given name ad further claimed lessor
sub-attributes is impossible
Post by wcb
Post by ScotMc
Now... back to inducing the non-existence of God.
Once, you have investigated enough claims of God and they have
all turned out false, it is quite reasonable to conclude that ALL
claims of God will be false.
I would agree this is a possible conclusion, though maybe the better
conclusion (i.e. the safer induction) would be "if there is a God,
theists are incapable of accurately describing it"...
--
Cheerful Charlie
wcb
2005-03-09 13:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by GregC
(snip)
Post by wcb
Science has managed to explain most anything you want
without and supernaturalism, there is no such ting,
and thus no room there for gods any more.
We no longer see demons under every leaf.
Really, we have large classes of gods, and get rid of
a class, and all possible gods of that class are debunked.
Strong Atheism is not hard. agnosticism thake the hit along
with religion.
Virgil, hit over teh head by hard evidnece at least 100
times this year, shamefacedly refuses to deal with my
arguments at all, much less honestly.
He is one of the most thoroughly cowardly, intellectually
and personally dishonest men on the net.
Because he keeps reasserting his debunked claim.
Again and again and again.
He is no different from the fundy who claims no
contradictions can be found in the bible and ignores
anybody who posts many and simply repeats his lies.
And does not find total dishonesty at all distasteful.
Most theists I know aren't arrogant enough
to insist that they've proven that a god
exists. Most of them say it's a matter of
faith. I find it amusing when so called
"intelligent" atheists insist that they've
proven a god can not possibly exist.
Nothing amusing about that. Its almost trivial.
And there really isn't much new about it either.
Epicurus posed the problem of evil about 300 BCE
and its still good evidence god as defined cannot
possibly exist.

The various claimed attributes of god self destruct
when carefully considered together. Even basic
concepts as omnipotence self destruct when you star
asking questions like "Can god create a rock so big he
cannot lift it"?

You end up with weird problems if you claim god
would be able to make the rules and laws and logic
of the world. Ifhe could do that it is trivial to show god
must be the creator and sustaining cause of all evil.

If not then god is not as claimed creator of all,
omnipotent, or the greatest thing that can be imagined.

And around and around it goes, on and on like this.
Thus a maximal god for who maximal claims are made
cannot exist.

If you want a god you have to step down
from these heady, maximal, omni-everything claims.
No such god can possibly exist.


This is almost trivial.

Archaeology has recently established most of the OT
is not history. God as a character who did something at a
specific time and specific place with specific reasons with
specific persons as claimed did not exist also.

The mythical god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
most certainly is debunked.

God is said to have created all, and to have omniscience.
If god does, he would know a world that contains a John Q.
Smith or not happens. He would know if Smith will be
evil or not. Any world he creates he makes a choice if
an evil or a good Smith occurs. If he creates a world
with an evil Smith, Smith is thus evil because god created
him that way.

Thus free will cannot exist even in principle.
But if god is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why
would he create evil at all. Why create a world knowing
Smith will be evil?

Eve a lessor god, ignoring the self destruction of such
defined gods is logically debunkable. What we see does
not fit the claims.

And it goes on and on like this.

Relaxed versions of god do not work either.

Nor can we go back to old versions of nature gods, we
don't need godlets to explain rain, sunshine or why
wheat grows.

Science explains these things and there are no room for
nature gods or godlets left. Even 2000 years ago,
the less than useful nature of such religions became
apparent, and Paganism died out.

Really, what is so amusing about simple and not very complex
disproof of gods, especially the self destrctive
omni-everything god?

What is not amusing about this is how little people
reason about such things. Its not hard.
Post by GregC
Many
of you about piss your pants bitching about
how intolerent theists are, all the while
insisting that even so much as claiming to
be an agnostic is intellectual dishonesty.
Fundamentalists of any ilk all about stink
the same, and are equally distasteful.
Its not fundamentalism, its common sense in the face
of deep and dangerous ignorance, willful stupidity,
distaste and dislike of basic reason and rationality.

It looks like you aren't capable of simple basic reason
either.

So you snap and snarl ignorantly.
You too are one of the immense, ignorant masses.
--
Cheerful Charlie
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 21:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by GregC
(snip)
Post by wcb
Science has managed to explain most anything you want
without and supernaturalism, there is no such ting,
and thus no room there for gods any more.
We no longer see demons under every leaf.
Really, we have large classes of gods, and get rid of
a class, and all possible gods of that class are debunked.
Strong Atheism is not hard. agnosticism thake the hit along
with religion.
Virgil, hit over teh head by hard evidnece at least 100
times this year, shamefacedly refuses to deal with my
arguments at all, much less honestly.
He is one of the most thoroughly cowardly, intellectually
and personally dishonest men on the net.
Because he keeps reasserting his debunked claim.
Again and again and again.
He is no different from the fundy who claims no
contradictions can be found in the bible and ignores
anybody who posts many and simply repeats his lies.
And does not find total dishonesty at all distasteful.
Most theists I know aren't arrogant enough
to insist that they've proven that a god
exists.
And are those the Theists, the one's you know,
who engage in lies and sophistry here on usenet?
Post by GregC
Most of them say it's a matter of
faith.
So, when you ask them, does God exist?
What sayeth they?
Post by GregC
I find it amusing when so called
"intelligent" atheists insist that they've
proven a god can not possibly exist.
Who claims "proof" of a negative?
There is no need to prove the non-existence
of something that hasn't even been properly
theorized to exist.

Without even a theory of existence for god(s)
there is no need to falsify anything -- ipso facto.
Post by GregC
Many of you about piss your pants bitching about
how intolerent theists are, all the while
insisting that even so much as claiming to
be an agnostic is intellectual dishonesty.
It is, and it has been repeatedly shown to be so
given the accepted discourse of philosophy and logic.
Post by GregC
Fundamentalists of any ilk all about stink
the same, and are equally distasteful.
So why do you so willingly swallow?
wcb
2005-03-09 08:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virgil
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
It takes NO FAITH to say that there is no God.
I don't agree. I believe that it takes the same level of faith to
say that there is a God as it takes to say that there is not a God.
Which is why you cannot carry on a discussion or debate about
Atheism -- you won't even agree on the lexical or philosophical
definition of the word, because to do so eviscerates your contradictory
premise.
You might as well argue that a Capybara is a Fish.
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does not
take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't know".
And since there is no evidence either way...
Lying again I see.

You lie a lot. Lying is your life.

God disproved.

By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the
most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator
of all. This god is defined as being intelligent,
having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically
to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?

2. That really asks the question, does god create the rules,
the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus
can change them at a whim, or for a reason?

3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.

4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.

5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.

6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so,god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.

7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.

8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable.

9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.

10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god himself
may not do evil, but that this does not mean god is not
omnipotent, because it is god's nature to be good.
Thus they do not account this inability to do evil
as limiting god's free will either. Thus the idea of
man being unable to do evil should likewise not be
allowed as an argument, if they refuse to apply the
same standards and reasoning to god, that would be
special pleading.

11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by
theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing
evil,evil is necessary to allow for free will,
but that dodge is not acceptale in a world where
man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing
moral evil is impossible. It can't be used here.

12. God is said to be the most pwerful thing that can
be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make teh laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.

13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these are all
thus falsified.

14. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.

15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.

16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because
he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.

17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. he either camnnot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent.

18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.

19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.

20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems
pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue
using a failed methodology, making empty assertions,
special pleading, double standards and failing to
adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting
assertions not proven one way or another and in
the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all
together with rhetorical questions "How can limited
man hope to understand an infinte god?". These
sorts of statments are simply indications that the
person in question is not going to be rational or
reasonable or change his or her mind faced with
facts.

21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all
expectations of respect for one's claims, that
person has abandoned reason and intellectual
honesty for obscurantism and superstition.

22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?

23. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws ofthe Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycsm chemisty, astronomy and other
sciences.

24. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for dissembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.

25. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
Much less the Grand God of theological tradition.

26. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing so, since
as demonstrated above, that is a failure as a
methodology.

27. At early times, man had no notion of a supernatural
versus a natural worl, but as the idea of a natural
world has evolved, the idea of a supernatual world
has faded away. All is seen to be a natural world
of matter, energy, physics, no sign of supernatural
worlds or entities can be found.

28. All claims thus based on the idea a supernatural
world or entities might exist are unproven, and
it is the burden of anyone making such a claim
to prove such a thing does in fact exist, before
attempting to use claims of the existance of a
supernatural realm as a theoretical bassis for
existance of god. And by prove, I mean to produce
good, hard evidencefor such a supernatural world,
not assertions that may or may not be true.
This is the failed theological methodology and is
no longer acceptable.

24. There is a difference between making theoretical
claims a god may exist, and actually showing hard
evidence a god exists. Claiming god exists based
on deeper unproven assertions, existance of a
supernatural world, is not acceptable as evidence.
One may not stack up mere assertions and claim it
is hard evidence. Arranging assertions in a manner
that proof or disproof is impossible because it
involves a general disproof of a negative is not
acceptable as a methodology for providing hard
evidence of a god.

25. Since to save god's omni-benevolence, one must
admit that god did not create the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe, we know that these things
are beyond and outside god. But theology cannot
tell us we what these things are,and where they come
from. Since these things must limit god, failure to
be able to tell us anything about these laws and rules
in the setting of theological claims about god, this
means until theology handles this honestly and
adequately, theology cannot tell us anything about
god, even theoretically.

26. Theology must do this if it is to make further
claims about god in an attempt to save the concept
of god by making further assertions or claims.
One cannot describe god apart from a world in which
god must operate and exist with existing features
preceeding and outside and limiting or constraining
any possible god.

27. Possible alternative gods.
A believer might criticize this as it does not
disprove all types of gods, but, as this does
disprovethe dogmatic god of major religous systems,
that claim does not saves this god. And indeed it
is possible to disprove other god concepts.

28. Example, older Roman and Greek religions and
numerous other older polytheistic ancient religions
were basically built on the idea of nature gods,
that these gods are responsible for features
of the world, for rainfall, fertility of wives,
cattle and fields, for important activities like
growing wheat. But today, science explains these
things without any signs of a god or any other
supernatural entities or phenomenon being found,
and technology has solved many of the problems
that prompted creation of such gods that were
created in hopes offinding some force to propitiate
to assure success in agriculture, producing offspring
and avoiding or curing sickness and ill health.
These gods are thus failed and disprovable and
were so disproven and abandoned by most mankind
some 2000 years ago.

29. Other basic ideas about gods were explored long
ago by Greek thinkers and the basic claims are
similar to the Judeo-Christian theological god
and suceptible to similar disconfirmations.
stoic and neo-Platonist thinkers long wrestled
with these problems. Epicurus noted the problem
of evil long before Christianity. Stoics tried
to explain things by positing all is matter but
souls and gods and such are made of a finer grade
of matter. Which ideas are based on unproven claims
of doubtful nature and are thus disprovable.
These systems also created impossible contradictions,
argumenst about pre-destination vs free will that
were never solved when Christianiy overtook them
and left these arguments unresolved, as these
religions faded away.

30. Other arguments, an imminent god versus a
transcedent god, god beyond and outside of time,
a world that does not exist outside the mind of god
and other variations and kinds of gods introduce
a rich soure of further debunkable claims.

31. Example: a god outside of time sees the world
differently from us as a one big now without actual
past nor future. Thus god see the future and can
know the future with exactitude. But such a god
that interacts with the world is part of it, at
such a point that he so acts, the world and god
are frozen in the big now of the Universe, god
thus is frozen embedded in the Universe and thus
like us, has no free will. All is determined
strongly and already is. Since theology demands
god has free will dogmatically, this god out of time
claim must be false.

32. Finally, any empty assertion, unproven, is only that,
unproven. Many claims made for god are just that.
Merely pointing this out when appropriate is the
equivalent of showing that claim is not acceptable
because if is not backed by hard evidence it is true.
Gods based on mere assertions and related concepts
based on mere assertions cannot be said to be true
and are disproven by pointing out they are based
solely on unproven or unprovable or unlikely
assertions.

End

**************************************************

God Disproven - Part 2

There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.

At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.

It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.

God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.

Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.

Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.

There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.

But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.

A few quotes from the experts:

"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992

Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."

William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"

"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994

Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."

Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."

"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001

Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religious
beliefs."

Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religious
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".


**************************************************
--
Cheerful Charlie
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 21:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by wcb
Post by Virgil
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
It takes NO FAITH to say that there is no God.
I don't agree. I believe that it takes the same level of faith
to say that there is a God as it takes to say that there is not
a God.
Which is why you cannot carry on a discussion or debate about
Atheism -- you won't even agree on the lexical or philosophical
definition of the word, because to do so eviscerates your
contradictory premise.
You might as well argue that a Capybara is a Fish.
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that
does not take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I
don't know".
And since there is no evidence either way...
Lying again I see.
You lie a lot. Lying is your life.
God disproved.
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the
most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator
of all. This god is defined as being intelligent,
having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically
to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
A fundie-brained theist can, they simply change/alter
the definition of triangle to somethimes have 4 sides --
if necessary to support their ludicrous initial assertions.
Post by wcb
2. That really asks the question, does god create the rules,
the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus
can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
Theist doth say affirmative.
Post by wcb
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
Done.
Post by wcb
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
Quite.
Post by wcb
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
Hideous unspeakable evil.
Post by wcb
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so,god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Yep. And Lucifer attempted to show mankind of God's inherant
evil and trickery -- and look what happened to him!
Post by wcb
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
Well, God did have to concede some points to Satan
during that internecine war/insurrection in Heaven,
and perhaps giving up the ability to do good things was
one of the cease-fire concession God made when he
surrendered part of his territory to the Rebels of Free Will.
Post by wcb
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
Well, the cretinous fundie-brains would never concede
that point, but they'd procede farther down the philosophical
argument if they just confessed that their posited god-creature
was often time quite evil. If only they dropped the element of
benevolence.
Post by wcb
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable.
See above.
Post by wcb
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
See above. Assume God is really "Satan", or has similar
attributed evil characteristics.
Post by wcb
10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god himself
may not do evil, but that this does not mean god is not
omnipotent, because it is god's nature to be good.
Of course that's just more lying fundie-speak.
Post by wcb
Thus they do not account this inability to do evil
as limiting god's free will either. Thus the idea of
man being unable to do evil should likewise not be
allowed as an argument, if they refuse to apply the
same standards and reasoning to god, that would be
special pleading.
11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by
theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing
evil,evil is necessary to allow for free will,
but that dodge is not acceptale in a world where
man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing
moral evil is impossible. It can't be used here.
Can you spare an aspirin?
Post by wcb
12. God is said to be the most pwerful thing that can
be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make teh laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
Unless they morph the definition of "god" to simply
be the universe as a whole. In any case then their argument
becomes meaningless Theologically.
Post by wcb
13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these are all
thus falsified.
14. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
The old god *was* omnipotent, but abdicated the throne
voluntarily gambit, eh?
Post by wcb
being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because
he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. he either camnnot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent.
18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems
pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue
using a failed methodology, making empty assertions,
special pleading, double standards and failing to
adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting
assertions not proven one way or another and in
the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all
together with rhetorical questions "How can limited
man hope to understand an infinte god?". These
sorts of statments are simply indications that the
person in question is not going to be rational or
reasonable or change his or her mind faced with
facts.
The essence of "fundie-brain" disease.
Post by wcb
21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all
expectations of respect for one's claims, that
person has abandoned reason and intellectual
honesty for obscurantism and superstition.
Which of course is why, QED, religion deserves
NO respect, zero, none, zip, zilch, nada! No
more than one should respect the ranting and
raving of any other mentally ill psychopath.
Post by wcb
22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
23. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws ofthe Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycsm chemisty, astronomy and other
sciences.
24. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for dissembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
25. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
Much less the Grand God of theological tradition.
26. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing so, since
as demonstrated above, that is a failure as a
methodology.
Fundie-brain syndrome.
Post by wcb
27. At early times, man had no notion of a supernatural
versus a natural worl, but as the idea of a natural
world has evolved, the idea of a supernatual world
has faded away. All is seen to be a natural world
of matter, energy, physics, no sign of supernatural
worlds or entities can be found.
28. All claims thus based on the idea a supernatural
world or entities might exist are unproven, and
it is the burden of anyone making such a claim
to prove such a thing does in fact exist, before
attempting to use claims of the existance of a
supernatural realm as a theoretical bassis for
existance of god. And by prove, I mean to produce
good, hard evidencefor such a supernatural world,
not assertions that may or may not be true.
This is the failed theological methodology and is
no longer acceptable.
24. There is a difference between making theoretical
claims a god may exist, and actually showing hard
evidence a god exists. Claiming god exists based
on deeper unproven assertions, existance of a
supernatural world, is not acceptable as evidence.
One may not stack up mere assertions and claim it
is hard evidence. Arranging assertions in a manner
that proof or disproof is impossible because it
involves a general disproof of a negative is not
acceptable as a methodology for providing hard
evidence of a god.
25. Since to save god's omni-benevolence, one must
admit that god did not create the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe, we know that these things
are beyond and outside god. But theology cannot
tell us we what these things are,and where they come
from. Since these things must limit god, failure to
be able to tell us anything about these laws and rules
in the setting of theological claims about god, this
means until theology handles this honestly and
adequately, theology cannot tell us anything about
god, even theoretically.
26. Theology must do this if it is to make further
claims about god in an attempt to save the concept
of god by making further assertions or claims.
One cannot describe god apart from a world in which
god must operate and exist with existing features
preceeding and outside and limiting or constraining
any possible god.
27. Possible alternative gods.
A believer might criticize this as it does not
disprove all types of gods, but, as this does
disprovethe dogmatic god of major religous systems,
that claim does not saves this god. And indeed it
is possible to disprove other god concepts.
28. Example, older Roman and Greek religions and
numerous other older polytheistic ancient religions
were basically built on the idea of nature gods,
that these gods are responsible for features
of the world, for rainfall, fertility of wives,
cattle and fields, for important activities like
growing wheat. But today, science explains these
things without any signs of a god or any other
supernatural entities or phenomenon being found,
and technology has solved many of the problems
that prompted creation of such gods that were
created in hopes offinding some force to propitiate
to assure success in agriculture, producing offspring
and avoiding or curing sickness and ill health.
These gods are thus failed and disprovable and
were so disproven and abandoned by most mankind
some 2000 years ago.
29. Other basic ideas about gods were explored long
ago by Greek thinkers and the basic claims are
similar to the Judeo-Christian theological god
and suceptible to similar disconfirmations.
stoic and neo-Platonist thinkers long wrestled
with these problems. Epicurus noted the problem
of evil long before Christianity. Stoics tried
to explain things by positing all is matter but
souls and gods and such are made of a finer grade
of matter. Which ideas are based on unproven claims
of doubtful nature and are thus disprovable.
These systems also created impossible contradictions,
argumenst about pre-destination vs free will that
were never solved when Christianiy overtook them
and left these arguments unresolved, as these
religions faded away.
30. Other arguments, an imminent god versus a
transcedent god, god beyond and outside of time,
a world that does not exist outside the mind of god
and other variations and kinds of gods introduce
a rich soure of further debunkable claims.
31. Example: a god outside of time sees the world
differently from us as a one big now without actual
past nor future. Thus god see the future and can
know the future with exactitude. But such a god
that interacts with the world is part of it, at
such a point that he so acts, the world and god
are frozen in the big now of the Universe, god
thus is frozen embedded in the Universe and thus
like us, has no free will. All is determined
strongly and already is. Since theology demands
god has free will dogmatically, this god out of time
claim must be false.
32. Finally, any empty assertion, unproven, is only that,
unproven. Many claims made for god are just that.
Merely pointing this out when appropriate is the
equivalent of showing that claim is not acceptable
because if is not backed by hard evidence it is true.
Gods based on mere assertions and related concepts
based on mere assertions cannot be said to be true
and are disproven by pointing out they are based
solely on unproven or unprovable or unlikely
assertions.
End
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religious
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religious
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
***********************************************
Poor diseased fundies -- nothing left to argue.
Steve Mading
2005-03-11 20:19:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:37:36 -0700,
Post by Virgil
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
It takes NO FAITH to say that there is no God.
I don't agree. I believe that it takes the same level of faith to
say that there is a God as it takes to say that there is not a God.
Which is why you cannot carry on a discussion or debate about
Atheism -- you won't even agree on the lexical or philosophical
definition of the word, because to do so eviscerates your contradictory
premise.
You might as well argue that a Capybara is a Fish.
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does not
take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't know".
And what you don't understand is that when talking about whether
or not a proposed thing exists, the only sane default when you
don't know is to assume "not exist" for the time being. Because
there is no such thing as evidence for non-existance. Things that
don't exist don't leave behind evidence. Thus assuming "not exist"
is in fact the only intellectually honest falisfiable default
hypothesis. It's the only one where you have any hope of
evidence swaying you away from it if you are mistaken.
Bill Shatzer
2005-03-12 05:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Virgil
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does not
take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't know".
And what you don't understand is that when talking about whether
or not a proposed thing exists, the only sane default when you
don't know is to assume "not exist" for the time being. Because
there is no such thing as evidence for non-existance. Things that
don't exist don't leave behind evidence.
"'Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?'

'To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.'

'The dog did nothing in the nighttime.'

'That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."

Sometimes the absence of evidence can be very strong evidence indeed.

Peace and justice,
John Baker
2005-03-12 09:20:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:08:39 -0800, Bill Shatzer
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Virgil
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does not
take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't know".
And what you don't understand is that when talking about whether
or not a proposed thing exists, the only sane default when you
don't know is to assume "not exist" for the time being. Because
there is no such thing as evidence for non-existance. Things that
don't exist don't leave behind evidence.
"'Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?'
'To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.'
'The dog did nothing in the nighttime.'
'That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."
Sometimes the absence of evidence can be very strong evidence indeed.
The fact that the dog did nothing is not absence of evidence, it's
evidence that the dog knew the intruder.

But you're quite correct. The absence of evidence for the existence of
any gods is very strong evidence indeed that no gods exist. <G>
Post by Bill Shatzer
Peace and justice,
wcb
2005-03-12 10:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:08:39 -0800, Bill Shatzer
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Virgil
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does
not take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't know".
And what you don't understand is that when talking about whether
or not a proposed thing exists, the only sane default when you
don't know is to assume "not exist" for the time being. Because
there is no such thing as evidence for non-existance. Things that
don't exist don't leave behind evidence.
"'Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?'
'To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.'
'The dog did nothing in the nighttime.'
'That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."
Sometimes the absence of evidence can be very strong evidence indeed.
The fact that the dog did nothing is not absence of evidence, it's
evidence that the dog knew the intruder.
But you're quite correct. The absence of evidence for the existence of
any gods is very strong evidence indeed that no gods exist. <G>
Like Sherlock's dog that should have barked but did not, when you defines
god such that his absence is noticable, then yes no evidence is strong
evidence.
Thus god is defined as infinitively merciful. His utter lack of mercy
in the OT, the killing of the fisrt born of Egypt, commands
to commit mass muder on the Midianites and the Canaanites and so on,
show us quite well, that this so called god is not merciful.

This god is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Now, if god is contemplating creating the world, he will know in the future
a man name John Smith will exist. He will know if he creates this world
rater than a nother, Smith wil be evil. He has a choice, create a world that
has an evil smith, or another that has a good smith.

Smith has no free will, he has no say in if he exists and if he is to
be created evil or good. Every second ofhis existance is considered
and accepted by god. There is no free will, there cannot
be free will for man even in principle.

Thus all moral evil that exists is god's fault, he made a choice
to have morally evilpeople in this world and chose each and every
evil act they did, to allow it to exist in teh world he alone created.

So, again, a god that is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
and omniscient and creator of all, cannot exist. Its contradictory.

We should, if ths god so defined exist, see no moral evil in
this Universe. God could not allow it.

A dog that does not bark when it should.

We have a strong absence of evidence for god when we contemplate
the claims made for god and the actual state ofthe world that differs from
one where a god with all these claimed attributes exists.

And there are more such contradictions like this that show us
god cannot exist as so defined by theology.

Example, many people argue man's free will places evil on man's shoulders,
not gods. Despite as I showed above that free will is impossible.

Its impossible in yet another manner. God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a totally good nature incapable
of doing evil. Despite this good nature that constricts
his actions he has free will, by definition.

Thus there would be no contradiction in likewise creating man with free
will, like god has, and yet a good nature incapable of of doing moral evil.
Thus the claim god give man free will and thus the ability to do evil is a
failed argument, a false argument.

Thus if god give man a nature other than good and incapable of evil
like god has, god is evil, because he allows evil to exist unnecessarily.

Again the dog does not bark, moral evil exists.
--
Cheerful Charlie
American Idle
2005-03-12 20:05:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:08:39 -0800, Bill Shatzer
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Virgil
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does not
take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't know".
And what you don't understand is that when talking about whether
or not a proposed thing exists, the only sane default when you
don't know is to assume "not exist" for the time being. Because
there is no such thing as evidence for non-existance. Things that
don't exist don't leave behind evidence.
"'Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?'
'To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.'
'The dog did nothing in the nighttime.'
'That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."
Sometimes the absence of evidence can be very strong evidence indeed.
That's a clever try but it's not the same. There is not an absence of
evidence. There was a ton of PRIOR evidence where the dog DID
something so where had direct evidence of the dog's existence. In the
"is there a god" question, there is ZERO prior evidence of god's
continuing existence. Note that I'm referring to the question of
whether god CURRENTLY (in our lifetime) exists, not whether god may or
may not have existed in some long ago past.
Bill Shatzer
2005-03-12 20:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:08:39 -0800, Bill Shatzer
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Virgil
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence that does not
take either faith or evidence is along the lines of "I don't know".
And what you don't understand is that when talking about whether
or not a proposed thing exists, the only sane default when you
don't know is to assume "not exist" for the time being. Because
there is no such thing as evidence for non-existance. Things that
don't exist don't leave behind evidence.
"'Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?'
'To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.'
'The dog did nothing in the nighttime.'
'That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."
Sometimes the absence of evidence can be very strong evidence indeed.
That's a clever try but it's not the same. There is not an absence of
evidence. There was a ton of PRIOR evidence where the dog DID
something so where had direct evidence of the dog's existence.
The evidence, or lack there of, relates not to the dog of which there
was ample evidence of its existance. Rather, the evidence, or lack
thereof, relates to the "curious incident".

That the dog did nothing is what indicates that a curious incident
did, in fact, occur.
Post by John Baker
In the
"is there a god" question, there is ZERO prior evidence of god's
continuing existence. Note that I'm referring to the question of
whether god CURRENTLY (in our lifetime) exists, not whether god may or
may not have existed in some long ago past.
Interesting take. Can an entity which has ceased to exist be properly
considered a "god"? Is a temporal non-eternal "god" worthy of the title?

Who was the philosopher who contemplated whether god could commit suicide?

Peace and justice,
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-13 01:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:08:39 -0800, Bill Shatzer
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Virgil
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence
that does not take either faith or evidence is along the
lines of "I don't know".
And what you don't understand is that when talking about whether
or not a proposed thing exists, the only sane default when you
don't know is to assume "not exist" for the time being. Because
there is no such thing as evidence for non-existance. Things that
don't exist don't leave behind evidence.
"'Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my
attention?' 'To the curious incident of the dog in the
night-time.' 'The dog did nothing in the nighttime.'
'That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."
Sometimes the absence of evidence can be very strong evidence indeed.
That's a clever try but it's not the same. There is not an absence
of evidence. There was a ton of PRIOR evidence where the dog DID
something so where had direct evidence of the dog's existence.
The evidence, or lack there of, relates not to the dog of which there
was ample evidence of its existance. Rather, the evidence, or lack
thereof, relates to the "curious incident".
That the dog did nothing is what indicates that a curious incident
did, in fact, occur.
Post by John Baker
In the
"is there a god" question, there is ZERO prior evidence of god's
continuing existence. Note that I'm referring to the question of
whether god CURRENTLY (in our lifetime) exists, not whether god may or
may not have existed in some long ago past.
Interesting take. Can an entity which has ceased to exist be properly
considered a "god"? Is a temporal non-eternal "god" worthy of the title?
Who was the philosopher who contemplated whether god could commit suicide?
Dr. Kervorkian ?
Post by Bill Shatzer
Peace and justice,
Scratch
2005-03-13 03:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by John Baker
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:08:39 -0800, Bill Shatzer
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Virgil
Actually, the only sort of statement about godly existence
that does not take either faith or evidence is along the
lines of "I don't know".
And what you don't understand is that when talking about whether
or not a proposed thing exists, the only sane default when you
don't know is to assume "not exist" for the time being. Because
there is no such thing as evidence for non-existance. Things that
don't exist don't leave behind evidence.
"'Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my
attention?' 'To the curious incident of the dog in the
night-time.' 'The dog did nothing in the nighttime.'
'That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."
Sometimes the absence of evidence can be very strong evidence indeed.
That's a clever try but it's not the same. There is not an absence
of evidence. There was a ton of PRIOR evidence where the dog DID
something so where had direct evidence of the dog's existence.
The evidence, or lack there of, relates not to the dog of which there
was ample evidence of its existance. Rather, the evidence, or lack
thereof, relates to the "curious incident".
That the dog did nothing is what indicates that a curious incident
did, in fact, occur.
Post by John Baker
In the
"is there a god" question, there is ZERO prior evidence of god's
continuing existence. Note that I'm referring to the question of
whether god CURRENTLY (in our lifetime) exists, not whether god may or
may not have existed in some long ago past.
Interesting take. Can an entity which has ceased to exist be properly
considered a "god"? Is a temporal non-eternal "god" worthy of the title?
Who was the philosopher who contemplated whether god could commit suicide?
Dr. Kervorkian ?
And refresh my memory, where is he now :)
Ed Earl Ross
2005-03-09 11:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
It takes NO FAITH to say that there is no God.
I don't agree. I believe that it takes the same level of faith to
say that there is a God as it takes to say that there is not a God.
Agree except that one definition of faith requires belief in a god,
which can lead to definitional disagreement. Perhaps a less
controversial statement is, "Belief in either a god or no god is a
superstition, because no conclusive evidence exists."
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Which is why you cannot carry on a discussion or debate about
Atheism -- you won't even agree on the lexical or philosophical
definition of the word, because to do so eviscerates your contradictory
premise.
You might as well argue that a Capybara is a Fish.
From the perspective of the faithful, it seems that it does
I am not among the faithful.
Nor the logical.
-Jeff
--
Humbly--Ed

Will Rogers
"We don't seem to be able to check crime, so why
not legalize it and then tax it out of business."
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 18:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Earl Ross
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
It takes NO FAITH to say that there is no God.
I don't agree. I believe that it takes the same level of faith to
say that there is a God as it takes to say that there is not a God.
Agree except that one definition of faith requires belief in a god,
"faith" as used in the discussions of theology, and within theological
texts themselves, absolutely defines belief in god as part of that term.
Post by Ed Earl Ross
which can lead to definitional disagreement.
See above.
Post by Ed Earl Ross
Perhaps a less controversial statement is, "Belief in either a god or no god
is a superstition, because no conclusive evidence exists."
Nice try, yet since "no god" is a nullity, essentially
the same as positing <nothing>, your inclusion renders
that part of your premise absurd, and logically incorrect.

Your statement becomes:
"Belief in either a god or nothing is a superstition ..."

And do try and remember that A-theism, is, by definition,
one who "DOES _NOT_ BELIEVE" in theism. The
negated verb is what defines Atheism.

It's not what typical fundie-brains attempt to restate into
a positive belief in a negated object. Fundie-brains always
attempt that fallacious redefinition, since without it they
can't even get their faulty premises out of the starting gate.
Post by Ed Earl Ross
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Which is why you cannot carry on a discussion or debate about
Atheism -- you won't even agree on the lexical or philosophical
definition of the word, because to do so eviscerates your
contradictory premise.
You might as well argue that a Capybara is a Fish.
From the perspective of the faithful, it seems that it does
I am not among the faithful.
Nor the logical.
-Jeff
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-03-09 18:14:02 UTC
Permalink
god
faith
belief
"leap of faith"
religion
Why am I responsible for providing definitions of those words,
Because they are the terms you and your fundie-brain fools
are constantly misusing/redefining to suit your failing arguments.
Personally I'm a hard-core agnostic, but I have a deep repect for
the strength that some draw from spirituality.
Now for the record - I am not only not a "fundy" - I'm a-religious,
a soft Agnostic. Always have been, always will be.
Good one, the addled fundie-speak in action, to wit:

"hard-core" = "soft-core"

Why do they lie so much?

BTW: Agnostics, soft-core or hard-core or any other perversion within,
are simply closeted Atheists too afraid to admit it in public. Intellectual
cowards, social milquetoasts.
Matt Cunningham
2005-05-04 19:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
god
faith
belief
"leap of faith"
religion
Why am I responsible for providing definitions of those words,
Because they are the terms you and your fundie-brain fools
are constantly misusing/redefining to suit your failing arguments.
Personally I'm a hard-core agnostic, but I have a deep repect for
the strength that some draw from spirituality.
Now for the record - I am not only not a "fundy" - I'm a-religious,
a soft Agnostic. Always have been, always will be.
"hard-core" = "soft-core"
Why do they lie so much?
BTW: Agnostics, soft-core or hard-core or any other perversion within,
are simply closeted Atheists too afraid to admit it in public. Intellectual
cowards, social milquetoasts.
What are you talking about? I'm agnostic... but I'm not a closet
atheist. In fact, I have no problem saying to just about anyone that,
from my experience, it seems highly possible(even likely) that there
isn't any God. But you can't *know* that, that's the issue. Our
perspective is limited to such a degree that we have no evidence on the
genesis of the universe, hence any assumption on the existence(or
non-existence) of a God is just that, an assumption. If you think
differently, you're, um, wrong ;p If you can find a single shred of
*proof* that God doesn't exist, then atheism wouldn't require a leap of
faith. However, until you can do that(and I know you can't) you're
making a leap of faith just as in any religion. Yeah, one could argue
that the atheistic "leap of faith" is smaller than that of a religion(to
man, non-existence trumps existence, logically) but it's still a leap of
faith. And please try to be a little less dramatic? Calling us
"Intellectual cowards, social milquetoasts" is a bit too dramatic for my
taste, and just makes it appear that you're covering up your ignorance
of the true issue with "big" words.
Charles & Mambo Duckman
2005-05-05 00:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Cunningham
What are you talking about? I'm agnostic... but I'm not a closet
atheist. In fact, I have no problem saying to just about anyone that,
from my experience, it seems highly possible(even likely) that there
isn't any God. But you can't *know* that, that's the issue. Our
perspective is limited to such a degree that we have no evidence on the
genesis of the universe, hence any assumption on the existence(or
non-existence) of a God is just that, an assumption. If you think
differently, you're, um, wrong ;p If you can find a single shred of
*proof* that God doesn't exist, then atheism wouldn't require a leap of
faith. However, until you can do that(and I know you can't) you're
making a leap of faith just as in any religion.
By not believing in gods, which are completely unsubstantiated propositions,
we are making a leap of faith?
Post by Matt Cunningham
Yeah, one could argue
that the atheistic "leap of faith" is smaller than that of a religion(to
man, non-existence trumps existence, logically) but it's still a leap of
faith.
No, one could argue, and very successfully if I might add, that there is no
leap of faith in atheism whatsoever.

Just like you are not making a leap of faith when you don't believe in the
existence of Qwexxlytrw, the 345-legged invisible Moon being, no atheist is
making it either in not believing every single god myth out there.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
Dave Thompson
2005-05-05 01:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles & Mambo Duckman
What are you talking about? I'm agnostic... but I'm not a closet atheist.
In fact, I have no problem saying to just about anyone that, from my
experience, it seems highly possible(even likely) that there isn't any
God. But you can't *know* that, that's the issue. Our perspective is
limited to such a degree that we have no evidence on the genesis of the
universe, hence any assumption on the existence(or non-existence) of a
God is just that, an assumption. If you think differently, you're, um,
wrong ;p If you can find a single shred of *proof* that God doesn't
exist, then atheism wouldn't require a leap of faith. However, until you
can do that(and I know you can't) you're making a leap of faith just as
in any religion.
By not believing in gods, which are completely unsubstantiated
propositions, we are making a leap of faith?
Yeah, one could argue that the atheistic "leap of faith" is smaller than
that of a religion(to man, non-existence trumps existence, logically) but
it's still a leap of faith.
No, one could argue, and very successfully if I might add, that there is
no leap of faith in atheism whatsoever.
Just like you are not making a leap of faith when you don't believe in the
existence of Qwexxlytrw, the 345-legged invisible Moon being, no atheist
is making it either in not believing every single god myth out there.
I'm an agnostic, and even though this guy is misrepresenting the argument as
fundies do, there is such a thing as atheism and strong atheism, and they
are different and require a different level belief and non belief, as even
theism does.

It all depends on what you define faith as and the degree to which one has
to believe to deserve a new category.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-05 06:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Charles & Mambo Duckman
Post by Matt Cunningham
What are you talking about? I'm agnostic... but I'm not a closet
atheist. In fact, I have no problem saying to just about anyone
that, from my experience, it seems highly possible(even likely)
that there isn't any God. But you can't *know* that, that's the
issue. Our perspective is limited to such a degree that we have
no evidence on the genesis of the universe, hence any assumption
on the existence(or non-existence) of a God is just that, an
assumption. If you think differently, you're, um, wrong ;p If
you can find a single shred of *proof* that God doesn't exist,
then atheism wouldn't require a leap of faith. However, until
you can do that(and I know you can't) you're making a leap of
faith just as in any religion.
By not believing in gods, which are completely unsubstantiated
propositions, we are making a leap of faith?
Post by Matt Cunningham
Yeah, one could argue that the atheistic "leap of faith" is
smaller than that of a religion(to man, non-existence trumps
existence, logically) but it's still a leap of faith.
No, one could argue, and very successfully if I might add, that
there is no leap of faith in atheism whatsoever.
Just like you are not making a leap of faith when you don't believe
in the existence of Qwexxlytrw, the 345-legged invisible Moon
being, no atheist is making it either in not believing every single
god myth out there.
I'm an agnostic, and even though this guy is misrepresenting the
argument as fundies do, there is such a thing as atheism and strong
atheism, and they are different and require a different level belief
and non belief, as even theism does.
It all depends on what you define faith as and the degree to which
one has to believe to deserve a new category.
So you have "faith" that any purported god is "unknowable", even
though you can't prove your premise, eh?

Therefore, using idiot fundie "logic", agnosticism requires "a leap of faith"
...
... and therefore ...
...and therefore ...
... and therefore ... Agnosticism is a Religion!
... and therefore ... God exists!!
greg byshenk
2005-05-05 09:33:00 UTC
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to or.politics.]
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Charles & Mambo Duckman
What are you talking about? I'm agnostic... but I'm not a closet atheist.
In fact, I have no problem saying to just about anyone that, from my
experience, it seems highly possible(even likely) that there isn't any
God. But you can't *know* that, that's the issue. Our perspective is
limited to such a degree that we have no evidence on the genesis of the
universe, hence any assumption on the existence(or non-existence) of a
God is just that, an assumption. If you think differently, you're, um,
wrong ;p If you can find a single shred of *proof* that God doesn't
exist, then atheism wouldn't require a leap of faith. However, until you
can do that(and I know you can't) you're making a leap of faith just as
in any religion.
What are the characteristics you impute to this "a God"? That is the
important question, because, absent any specification of this "God"
that you are talking about, your statement becomes one of whether or
not "X" exists (or whether you believe "X" exists). In other words,
if you can't specify what you mean by "X", then there cannot possibly
be any evidence for or against the existence of "X". That said, this
"problem" has nothing at all to do with the existence or nonexistence
of any entity, but only to do with your inability to specify what it
is that you are talking about.
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Charles & Mambo Duckman
By not believing in gods, which are completely unsubstantiated
propositions, we are making a leap of faith?
Yeah, one could argue that the atheistic "leap of faith" is smaller than
that of a religion(to man, non-existence trumps existence, logically) but
it's still a leap of faith.
Not necessarily. If I say that 'god' is the elephant in my bedroom,
then it is no "leap of faith" to assert that this 'god' does not
exist -- as there is _no_ elephant in my bedroom. Similarly, if I
say that 'god' is the tortoise upon whose back stand the four
elephants which support the world, then similarly, no "leap of faith"
is required. There are no such elephants, and is no such tortoise.
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Charles & Mambo Duckman
No, one could argue, and very successfully if I might add, that there is
no leap of faith in atheism whatsoever.
Just like you are not making a leap of faith when you don't believe in the
existence of Qwexxlytrw, the 345-legged invisible Moon being, no atheist
is making it either in not believing every single god myth out there.
I'm an agnostic, and even though this guy is misrepresenting the argument as
fundies do, there is such a thing as atheism and strong atheism, and they
are different and require a different level belief and non belief, as even
theism does.
True. As is commonly used, 'atheism' simply means absence of belief
in god(s). As such, 'atheism' requires no "leap of faith", but
merely the practice common to thinking people of not believing in
things for which there is no evidence. Just as there is no evidence
for the existence of "Qwexxlytrw, the 345-legged invisible Moon being,"
there is no evidence for the existence of Hermes, Thor, Shiva, JHVH,
and a host of other supposed 'gods'. Thus, there is no reason to
assert the existence of any such entities.

Simple 'atheism' is sometimes contrasted with 'strong atheism',
meaning the active denial of some god(s); that is, not merely "I see
no reason to believe that 'god' exists", but "'god' does _not_ exist".
But even 'strong atheism' need not rest on a "leap of faith". Among
the various purported 'gods' in the world, some are impossible (and
therefore by definition cannot exist), and others can be demonstrated
not to exist (eg: the elephant and tortoise 'gods' noted above).
--
greg byshenk - ***@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL
K Smythe
2005-05-06 21:59:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:33:00 -0000, greg byshenk
Post by greg byshenk
["Followup-To:" header set to or.politics.]
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Charles & Mambo Duckman
What are you talking about? I'm agnostic... but I'm not a closet atheist.
In fact, I have no problem saying to just about anyone that, from my
experience, it seems highly possible(even likely) that there isn't any
God. But you can't *know* that, that's the issue. Our perspective is
limited to such a degree that we have no evidence on the genesis of the
universe, hence any assumption on the existence(or non-existence) of a
God is just that, an assumption. If you think differently, you're, um,
wrong ;p If you can find a single shred of *proof* that God doesn't
exist, then atheism wouldn't require a leap of faith. However, until you
can do that(and I know you can't) you're making a leap of faith just as
in any religion.
What are the characteristics you impute to this "a God"?
I can't speak for Matt, but I did agree with his post for the most
part.

Here's how I would anwer your question.

As an agnostic, I can't be very specific (you do know what agnostic
means, don't you?), but I would say that if a god or gods exist that
they were responsible for creation.

Alll I know is what I perceive and I perceive a whole world around me
and I don't know how the hell it all got here!

If it was the big bang, then where did all the material for that come
from?

It doesn't matter that I can't tell you much about god or gods or
where they came from if in fact they do exist.

God may simply be the all-encompassing laws of science which cause
everything to work the way they do.

Perhaps god is the sum of all conscious life - I really don't know.

But you believe that it's impossible that there could ever be such a
thing.
Post by greg byshenk
That is the
important question, because, absent any specification of this "God"
that you are talking about, your statement becomes one of whether or
not "X" exists (or whether you believe "X" exists). In other words,
if you can't specify what you mean by "X", then there cannot possibly
be any evidence for or against the existence of "X".
But we simply admit we don't know.

I have a pretty good hunch it's not Allah or the Holy Trinity,
especially given the plethora of variations in the beliefs of Muslims
and Christians, but how do I know that some "god" doesn't exist and
simply has no interest in organized religion?
Post by greg byshenk
That said, this
"problem"
He said he had no problem!
Post by greg byshenk
has nothing at all to do with the existence or nonexistence
of any entity, but only to do with your inability to specify what it
is that you are talking about.
We're talking about a god or gods. Do you believe in undiscovered
species of insects?

Tell us what these insects look like.

You cannot do it, of course. You could imagine an unrealistic insect
and say with some degree of confidence that no such create exists, but
you cannot say what these these undiscovered insects look like, so why
should I believe in them?
Post by greg byshenk
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Charles & Mambo Duckman
By not believing in gods, which are completely unsubstantiated
propositions, we are making a leap of faith?
Yeah, one could argue that the atheistic "leap of faith" is smaller than
that of a religion(to man, non-existence trumps existence, logically) but
it's still a leap of faith.
Not necessarily. If I say that 'god' is the elephant in my bedroom,
then it is no "leap of faith" to assert that this 'god' does not
exist -- as there is _no_ elephant in my bedroom.
But if god doesn't exist, then god cannot possibly be the elephant in
your bedroom, so your definition of "god" could have been wrong.

How would you know?
Post by greg byshenk
Similarly, if I
say that 'god' is the tortoise upon whose back stand the four
elephants which support the world, then similarly, no "leap of faith"
is required. There are no such elephants, and is no such tortoise.
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Charles & Mambo Duckman
No, one could argue, and very successfully if I might add, that there is
no leap of faith in atheism whatsoever.
Just like you are not making a leap of faith when you don't believe in the
existence of Qwexxlytrw, the 345-legged invisible Moon being, no atheist
is making it either in not believing every single god myth out there.
I'm an agnostic, and even though this guy is misrepresenting the argument as
fundies do, there is such a thing as atheism and strong atheism, and they
are different and require a different level belief and non belief, as even
theism does.
True. As is commonly used, 'atheism' simply means absence of belief
in god(s).
That depends - to many people, it means those who believe there is no
god.

That's why I prefer to say I am an agnostic rather than an atheist,
specifically because many equate the word atheism with strong atheism.
Post by greg byshenk
As such, 'atheism' requires no "leap of faith", but
merely the practice common to thinking people of not believing in
things for which there is no evidence. Just as there is no evidence
for the existence of "Qwexxlytrw, the 345-legged invisible Moon being,"
But can you say with any certainty that there is NO life on anywhere
else in the universe?
Post by greg byshenk
there is no evidence for the existence of Hermes, Thor, Shiva, JHVH,
and a host of other supposed 'gods'.
Of course not. But can you say with any certainty that there is NO
'god'?

The evidence is all around us - remember, 'god' might not be
interested in religion and so "he/she/it" may not have provided any
obvious evidence - other than the obviously very real and truly
incredible universe which we can plainly see.
Post by greg byshenk
Thus, there is no reason to
assert the existence of any such entities.
And of course, agnostics do NOT assert the existence of any entities.

You might be right - there may be no god or gods.
Post by greg byshenk
Simple 'atheism' is sometimes contrasted with 'strong atheism',
meaning the active denial of some god(s); that is, not merely "I see
no reason to believe that 'god' exists", but "'god' does _not_ exist".
Interesting - so by YOUR defition of "simple 'atheism'", agnosticism
is NOT atheism.

Can you convince your fellow atheists of the same?
Post by greg byshenk
But even 'strong atheism' need not rest on a "leap of faith". Among
the various purported 'gods' in the world, some are impossible (and
therefore by definition cannot exist), and others can be demonstrated
not to exist (eg: the elephant and tortoise 'gods' noted above).
But can you prove that a god you aren't capable of imagining doesn't
exist?
Baxter
2005-05-06 22:12:49 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by K Smythe
If it was the big bang, then where did all the material for that come
from?
Where did "god" come from?
Steve Mading
2005-05-06 23:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Followup Newsgroups restored to include the one I first read the post in.
Post by greg byshenk
Simple 'atheism' is sometimes contrasted with 'strong atheism',
meaning the active denial of some god(s); that is, not merely "I see
no reason to believe that 'god' exists", but "'god' does _not_ exist".
But even 'strong atheism' need not rest on a "leap of faith". Among
the various purported 'gods' in the world, some are impossible (and
therefore by definition cannot exist), and others can be demonstrated
not to exist (eg: the elephant and tortoise 'gods' noted above).
And the other important thing to note is that a single
person can be a strong atheist with respect to SOME gods,
and a weak atheist with respect to others. And no, that's
not a case of waffling. It's just that "God" is one of
those words that different people define differently.
In reaction to the god described literally by the Bible,
I'm a strong atheist because that god is described in self-
contradictory ways such that there are several reasons it is
provably impossible for it to exist. But some people, even
Christians, aren't talking about that god when they say "God".
Through "creative" figurative interpretation of the bible,
different people have totally unrelated versions of god that
they claim exists. For the generic catch-all term "god", a
word which is frankly an unfinished, wishy-washy meaningless
definition for most people, I am only a weak atheist.

And I haven't even left the topic of Christianity yet before
the problem of multiple god definitions surfaces. Add in the
other cults of the world and it gets even worse.

I am a strong atheist with respect to a small subset of the
few god descriptions I am familiar with, and a weak atheist
with respect to the rest.
Dubh Ghall
2005-05-05 18:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
I'm an agnostic, and even though this guy is misrepresenting the argument as
fundies do, there is such a thing as atheism and strong atheism, and they
are different and require a different level belief and non belief, as even
theism does.
Not really.

The search for empirical "proof" for the existence of any sort of god, is not
new, it has probably been going on for as long as man has had gods.

In all of that time, there has never been any evidence found.

Then there is the problem of defining a god.

Every religion, sect, what-have-you, has it's own definition of what it's god
is.

No two are identical, and I have yet to see one that is logically possible.

So which description do we use?

Or do we lump them all together?

That would be fun, there are enough contradictions in any single sect, to
nullify any value it might have as a description.

Lump them all together, and the situation becomes even worse.

So: When a thing has no verifiable evidence for it's existence, and from it's
own description, it is logically impossible, then a: there is no reason to
believe that such a thing exists. i.e. atheists do not believe that gods exist.
b: When a search for something, has gone on for long enough, and failed to
produce any significant evidence, as in "No evidence at all", many atheists feel
that it is time to take the next logical step, and recognise the lack of
evidence, as "Evidence of lack".

Personally, I feel that to fail to accept that, is to leave your self in a world
where every wild imagining, that has ever crossed the mind of man, is possible.

You see: Atheists believe that gods, don't exist, for exactly the same reasons
that they believe the Easter Bunny, Santa, Xmas Faeries, Fiery Green Dragons,
etc, etc. doesn't exist.

How much evidence would you want, to convince you that Fiery Green Dragons,
*don't* exist, and how much to convince you that they do?
Post by Dave Thompson
It all depends on what you define faith as and the degree to which one has
to believe to deserve a new category.
Faith, is to believe where there is neither evidence, nor logic, to support your
belief.


As you can see, there is no faith involved.


--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.

Plonked by Rob Duncan

Na bister 500,000
AntiSeptic
2005-05-06 00:35:47 UTC
Permalink
Dubh Ghall wrote:

[snip]
Post by Dubh Ghall
Faith, is to believe where there is neither evidence, nor logic, to support your
belief.
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
I'd argue that there are different degrees of
faith. Getting into an airplane takes a certain
amount of faith. Faith in the pilot, faith in
the airlines, etc., faith in the air traffic
controllers. This is not blind faith, it is
(hopefully), based on evidence of their past
performance, backed by a logical determination
that, most likely, it will be safe. It is not
a case of certainty, however.

Then there is blind faith, which is something
believed out of wishful thinking only. I'll
leave it to our gentle readers to determine,
based upon observation, what kind of faith it
is that most theist's rely upon.
m***@aol.com
2005-05-06 01:02:15 UTC
Permalink
"Faith,
Is to believe
Where there is neither evidence, nor logic,
To support your belief."
~ Puck

"O, hell.
How'd you find us here?'
~ Folly

"As you can see,
There is no faith involved."
~ Puck

"Pure science,
And fortitude ~ But fortitude is faith,
As science takes time.

And if you have AD[Hi!]D like us ~
You may become [a]
Patient."
~ Twittering

"I'd argue that there are different
Degrees
Of faith."
~ Dr. AE

"Me
2."
~ Twittering

"... or different lens
For your Meade telescope."
~ Folly

"Different
Depths of field."
~ Candy

"Getting into an airplane
Takes a certain amount of faith.

Faith in the pilot,
Faith in the airlines, etc.,
Faith in the air traffic controllers.

This is not blind faith,
It is (hopefully),
Based on evidence of their past performance,
Backed
By a logical determination
that, most likely,
It will be safe.

It is not
A case of certainty, however."
~ Dr. AE

"Never end your sentence
With 'however; only after or before
A semicolon."
~ Folly

"Then there is blind faith,
Which is something believed out

Of wishful

Thinking
Only."
~ Dr. AE

"Or Necessity,
The Mother of Invention."
~ Twitteirng

"... or
Go Insane."
~ Folly

"I'll leave
It to our gentle readers
To determine,

Based upon observation,
What kind of faith it is that most theist's rely upon."
~ Dr. AE

"No, know ~ Don't leave!
Sit down.

We value your > P."
~ Fobby

"O, we do ~ !
Please stay."
~ Twittering LSTOO & Folly IAG
Dave Thompson
2005-05-06 01:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
I'm an agnostic, and even though this guy is misrepresenting the argument as
fundies do, there is such a thing as atheism and strong atheism, and they
are different and require a different level belief and non belief, as even
theism does.
Not really.
The search for empirical "proof" for the existence of any sort of god, is not
new, it has probably been going on for as long as man has had gods.
In all of that time, there has never been any evidence found.
Then there is the problem of defining a god.
Every religion, sect, what-have-you, has it's own definition of what it's god
is.
No two are identical, and I have yet to see one that is logically possible.
So which description do we use?
Or do we lump them all together?
That would be fun, there are enough contradictions in any single sect, to
nullify any value it might have as a description.
Lump them all together, and the situation becomes even worse.
So: When a thing has no verifiable evidence for it's existence, and from it's
own description, it is logically impossible, then a: there is no reason to
believe that such a thing exists. i.e. atheists do not believe that gods exist.
b: When a search for something, has gone on for long enough, and failed to
produce any significant evidence, as in "No evidence at all", many atheists feel
that it is time to take the next logical step, and recognise the lack of
evidence, as "Evidence of lack".
Personally, I feel that to fail to accept that, is to leave your self in a world
where every wild imagining, that has ever crossed the mind of man, is possible.
You see: Atheists believe that gods, don't exist, for exactly the same reasons
that they believe the Easter Bunny, Santa, Xmas Faeries, Fiery Green Dragons,
etc, etc. doesn't exist.
How much evidence would you want, to convince you that Fiery Green Dragons,
*don't* exist, and how much to convince you that they do?
Post by Dave Thompson
It all depends on what you define faith as and the degree to which one has
to believe to deserve a new category.
Faith, is to believe where there is neither evidence, nor logic, to support your
belief.
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
So you have managed to drone on without addressing the point.
Congratulations.

It wasn't about atheism, it was about atheists. Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs. The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Dubh Ghall
2005-05-06 12:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
Faith, is to believe where there is neither evidence, nor logic, to support your
belief.
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
So you have managed to drone on without addressing the point.
Congratulations.
It wasn't about atheism, it was about atheists.
Funny thing, about atheists, and atheism; You never seem to find one, without
the other.
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.

I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.

By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.


--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.

Plonked by Rob Duncan

Na bister 500,000
George
2005-05-06 14:19:23 UTC
Permalink
(snipped)
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Christopher A. Lee
2005-05-06 14:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
(snipped)
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Why the lie? You come across as an xian fanatic when you use the
standard Christian slanders about atheists.
George
2005-05-06 16:30:23 UTC
Permalink
(snipped)
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by George
Post by Dubh Ghall
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Why the lie? You come across as an xian fanatic when you use the
standard Christian slanders about atheists.
I didn't slander *atheists*, I was referring to the
particular exhange between them. Dubh Ghall's written
this over and over again, more or less proclaiming
that you have to be an idiot not to accept the "fact"
Post by Christopher A. Lee
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************
1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.
2. God is also said to have free will.
3. God is also said to be omnipotent.
4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.
5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?
6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.
7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.
6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.
7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.
8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?
9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.
10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.
(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent.
4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.
5. The creator of all.
6. Intelligent and concious, having will.
7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.
16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.
21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
**************************************************
**********************************
God Disproven Number 3
**********************************
Romans 11:7-8
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for; but the election hath obtained it; and the
rest were blinded.
(According as it is written, God hath given them
the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not
see, ears that they should not hear) unto this
day.
Many christians claim god gave us free will,
but here we see that that in fact, god is
said to blind many to spiritual truth. So
in fact, free will means nothing to god. Here
Paul is trying to explain why Israel has rejected
Jesus as a messiah.
Thus, if god does not care about free will, and even
denies men free will by so blinding them, free will is
no longer an arguable claim if the bible is true.
If god is omnibenevolent, then he would be duty
bound to make all men believers and all men capable
of only doing moral good. If he could do so, and
does not he is not omnibenevolent.
So a benevolent god that does not care about free will
cannot exist in a world where we see unbelief and moral
evil.
*********
Most theologians in the past have agreed god has free will.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica made that quite explicit.
Yet all theologians also agree god is omnibenevolent.
That is he has free will yet can only do good, never evil.
Yet many apologists tell us man needs free will and thus
ability to do evil. This is to get god off the hook for
existance of evil.
But as god can have a good nature and free will, so can man.
That argument is no longer viable.
But if god can make man with a god like free will
and good nature incapable of never doing moral
evil and fails to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil and is evil himself.
That we live in a world where moral evil exists proves
an omnibenevolent god is nonexistant.
**********
God is said to be omnipotent.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
If yes he cannot lift such a rock and thus is
non-omnipotent. If no, he cannot create such a
rock and is non-omnipotent.
Omnipotent is a self destructing concept that cannot
exist in reality. It is literally nonsense, incoherent,
impossible.
Thus an omnipotent god is not possible.
***********
Is god omnipotent? In Judges 1:19, god
cannot deal with iron chariots.
And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive
out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had
chariots of iron.
An inventive and intelligent god would have
made the chariot wheels fall off or killed
the horses such as he killed all the cattle
of Egypt in Exodus 9:6.
If the bible is true, there is no omnipotent god.
If apologists wish to claim there is such and
omnipotent god, they have to admit the bible is
false and rather silly.
***********
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die.
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this lie
would not achieve its goal.
Again, if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
***********
Is god omnibenevolent? By all claims, yes.
That is god must always do good and never evil.
But if he can never do evil, then there is
god cannot do, evil. Thus he has no free will
after all. And there is something he cannot do.
Evil. He is not omnipotent.
Thus a an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god with
free will cannot exist as claimed. Theology has
pretended to solve this problem by essentially
redefining free will and omnipotent in a very
dishonest manner and hoping nobody ever noticed.
And of course there was always the torture chamber
for those who might be honest.
************
Exodus Chapter 5
5:4
And it came to pass by the way into the inn
that the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill
him. Then Zipporah (Moses's wife see Exodus 2;21)
took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her
son and cast it at his feet, and said, surely
a bloody husband thou art to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband
thou art because of the circumcission.
This bizaare tale presents god as being unable
to kill Moses in a personal attack upon his
person bodily.
Thus if the bible is true, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. This is one tale you will not hear
preached from the local pulpits.
A god incapable of killing a solitary Israelite
in an ambush outside an inn isn't much of a god.
****************
(End)
***********************************************
God Disproven Omniscience #1
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
***********************************************
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die."
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this
lie would not achieve its goal.
Thus if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
(End)
Dave Thompson
2005-05-06 16:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by George
(snipped)
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Why the lie? You come across as an xian fanatic when you use the
standard Christian slanders about atheists.
Denial is the same whether it comes from an atheist or a theist.

As an agnostic I think atheists are equally as silly as theists. You can't
say that something you can't know doesn't exist, or that it's important in
any way to take a position for or against whether or not god exists. One
could define what they thought god was and then say it doesn't exist, but
someone else could simply say natural law was god or existence was god and
you start a whole new argument over the definition.

Ultimately no one knows and it doesn't matter whether one is right or not as
long as you don't go around believing you know the truth and forcing it on
the other guy.

atheists and theists. Different sides of the same coin as far as agnostics
are concerned.
Christopher A. Lee
2005-05-06 17:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by George
(snipped)
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Why the lie? You come across as an xian fanatic when you use the
standard Christian slanders about atheists.
Denial is the same whether it comes from an atheist or a theist.
Or in your case when an agnostic refuses to grant that he is not
describing the generic atheist.
Post by Dave Thompson
As an agnostic I think atheists are equally as silly as theists. You can't
say that something you can't know doesn't exist, or that it's important in
any way to take a position for or against whether or not god exists. One
could define what they thought god was and then say it doesn't exist, but
someone else could simply say natural law was god or existence was god and
you start a whole new argument over the definition.
You just demonstrated my point.

For some reason you insist on the rabid fundy meaning of the word
"atheist" when in reality all it takes (and which describes most of
us) is that we're people who aren't theist.

Unless you're a believer, not believing the theist's deity is no
different than not believing in elves.
Post by Dave Thompson
Ultimately no one knows and it doesn't matter whether one is right or not as
long as you don't go around believing you know the truth and forcing it on
the other guy.
What is there to "not know"?

Apparently you have something in your worldview that you say that
about.

It is part of the theist paradigm, not the atheist one. Atheists don't
have anything to not know about.

We're simply people who aren't theist. That's all.
Post by Dave Thompson
atheists and theists. Different sides of the same coin as far as agnostics
are concerned.
Only in your bigoted ignorance.
Dave Thompson
2005-05-06 17:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by George
(snipped)
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Why the lie? You come across as an xian fanatic when you use the
standard Christian slanders about atheists.
Denial is the same whether it comes from an atheist or a theist.
Or in your case when an agnostic refuses to grant that he is not
describing the generic atheist.
Post by Dave Thompson
As an agnostic I think atheists are equally as silly as theists. You can't
say that something you can't know doesn't exist, or that it's important in
any way to take a position for or against whether or not god exists. One
could define what they thought god was and then say it doesn't exist, but
someone else could simply say natural law was god or existence was god and
you start a whole new argument over the definition.
You just demonstrated my point.
For some reason you insist on the rabid fundy meaning of the word
"atheist" when in reality all it takes (and which describes most of
us) is that we're people who aren't theist.
Unless you're a believer, not believing the theist's deity is no
different than not believing in elves.
Post by Dave Thompson
Ultimately no one knows and it doesn't matter whether one is right or not as
long as you don't go around believing you know the truth and forcing it on
the other guy.
What is there to "not know"?
Apparently you have something in your worldview that you say that
about.
It is part of the theist paradigm, not the atheist one. Atheists don't
have anything to not know about.
We're simply people who aren't theist. That's all.
Post by Dave Thompson
atheists and theists. Different sides of the same coin as far as agnostics
are concerned.
Only in your bigoted ignorance.
Well, when someone starts calling reasonable differences of opinion "bigoted
ignorance", you know that person has an unhealthy emotional stake in the
conversation and it's time to move on.
Steve Mading
2005-05-06 23:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only in your bigoted ignorance.
Well, when someone starts calling reasonable differences of opinion "bigoted
ignorance", you know that person has an unhealthy emotional stake in the
conversation and it's time to move on.
The above statement is true, but has nothing to do with what transpired here,
since your opinion as presented was not "reasonable".
Dave Thompson
2005-05-07 01:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only in your bigoted ignorance.
Well, when someone starts calling reasonable differences of opinion "bigoted
ignorance", you know that person has an unhealthy emotional stake in the
conversation and it's time to move on.
The above statement is true, but has nothing to do with what transpired here,
since your opinion as presented was not "reasonable".
Then he and you should have produced some evidence that it wasn't.

No evidence?

Join the theists then.
Charles & Mambo Duckman
2005-05-07 06:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Only in your bigoted ignorance.
Well, when someone starts calling reasonable differences of opinion "bigoted
ignorance", you know that person has an unhealthy emotional stake in the
conversation and it's time to move on.
The above statement is true, but has nothing to do with what transpired here,
since your opinion as presented was not "reasonable".
Then he and you should have produced some evidence that it wasn't.
No evidence?
Join the theists then.
Don't be fucking stupid. Not only do you make a completely erroneous
assumption that agnosticism is some kind of a halfway house between theism
and atheism, but your silly position that "no one knows" about gods is a
textbook example of a question begging:

There are gods.
No one knows about them.
Therefore we have to operate on the assumption that they are there.

This is total bullshit, for obvious reasons, only one of which is the burden
of proof. So I hate to blow your hollier-than-thou bubble, but your messages
are full of such logical fallacies. Here's another one:

"one could define what they thought god was and then say it doesn't exist,
but someone else could simply say natural law was god or existence was god
and you start a whole new argument over the definition."

Who cares what some idiot can produce by equivocation? If this is the best
you can come up with as a defense of your "agnosticism" in its alleged
supremacy over atheism, then you have to go back to the drawing board.

And last, but not least, agnosticism and atheism are orthogonal, i.e. not
mutually exclusive.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
wcb
2005-05-06 22:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by George
(snipped)
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Why the lie? You come across as an xian fanatic when you use the
standard Christian slanders about atheists.
Denial is the same whether it comes from an atheist or a theist.
As an agnostic I think atheists are equally as silly as theists. You can't
say that something you can't know doesn't exist,
When somebody foolishly makes assertions that taken together
show that the god these people proclaims exists cannot exist,
it most certainly is not silly. I can know that god as defined
as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, creator of all,
cannot exist as claimed.

That defeats the general, maximalist, overarching god theists
define when they write god.

I can take out an entire class of maximalist gods by
noting these contradictions.
Its almost trivial. Thus I take out theists and agnostics too.

I can show you the god of theology, the omni-everything god
is not the god of the bible.

I can show you god in the bible is merely a character
in a bad novel masquerading as history that has been debunked
by archaeology. There was no exodus, no 40 years wandering.
Thus no god in Sinai with Moses on the Mount.

I can show you that god defined as creator of all and
omniscient makes free will impossible and thus makes
god creator of all evil, not omnibenevolent as defined.

God is not possible as defined.
But since that maixmalist god cannot exist, believers
cannot claim that or base anything on that god's supposed
existance either.

Such as specific claims about Jesus or Mohammed et al.
Post by Dave Thompson
or that it's important in
any way to take a position for or against whether or not god exists. One
could define what they thought god was and then say it doesn't exist, but
someone else could simply say natural law was god or existence was god and
you start a whole new argument over the definition.
It is most important when morons are destroying science in
America, trying to end birth control or family planning world wide,
and so -called christian presidents are lying us into wars.

Religion is stupidity and the religous need to be debunked,
along with useful dupes and fellow travlers in the anti-intellectualism
such as agnostics.
Post by Dave Thompson
Ultimately no one knows and it doesn't matter whether one is right or not
as long as you don't go around believing you know the truth and forcing it
on the other guy.
atheists and theists. Different sides of the same coin as far as agnostics
are concerned.
We do know. Because some of us Atheists actually think.

Hard Atheism is the only thing that can be shown
true by considering the claims of theology.

Here. Proof. You will ignore it of course, like all
the other agnostics and theists I plop this down in front of.
You have reason and hard Atheism, or all else and error
and rank superstition and foolishness. Choose now.

******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************

1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.

2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful

3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.

4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.

5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.

6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.

7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.

8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.

9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.

10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.

11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.

12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.

13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.

14. Morally evil men and women exist.

15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.

16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.

17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.

(End)

****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************

1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.

2. God is also said to have free will.

3. God is also said to be omnipotent.

4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.

5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?

6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.

7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.

6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.

7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.

8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?

9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.

10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.

(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************

God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent

2. Omniscient

3. Omnibenevolent.

4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.

5. The creator of all.

6. Intelligent and concious, having will.

7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?

8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?

9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.

10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.

11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.

12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.

13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.

14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.

15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.

16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.

17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.

18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.

19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.

20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.

21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.

22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.

23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.

24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.

25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?

26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.

27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.

28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.

29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.

(END)

**************************************************

God Disproven - Part 2

There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.

At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.

It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.

God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.

Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.

Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.

There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.

But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.

A few quotes from the experts:

"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992

Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."

William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"

"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994

Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."

Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."

"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001

Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."

Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".


**************************************************
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Dave Thompson
2005-05-06 22:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by wcb
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by George
(snipped)
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Why the lie? You come across as an xian fanatic when you use the
standard Christian slanders about atheists.
Denial is the same whether it comes from an atheist or a theist.
As an agnostic I think atheists are equally as silly as theists. You can't
say that something you can't know doesn't exist,
When somebody foolishly makes assertions that taken together
show that the god these people proclaims exists cannot exist,
it most certainly is not silly. I can know that god as defined
as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, creator of all,
cannot exist as claimed.
That defeats the general, maximalist, overarching god theists
define when they write god.
I can take out an entire class of maximalist gods by
noting these contradictions.
Its almost trivial. Thus I take out theists and agnostics too.
I can show you the god of theology, the omni-everything god
is not the god of the bible.
The only thing you've shown is that you're a strong atheist, thus proving my
original point that strong atheism requires different belief sets than does
atheism, weak atheism, or agnosticism.

You come across just as zealous as a theist.

I don't believe that the god of organized religion exists, but I also don't
believe you can prove or dismiss something you can't define. I'm content not
knowing. You are only content knowing naught.

Resst of mind numbing poop stained twaddle erased.
Dubh Ghall
2005-05-06 22:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Denial is the same whether it comes from an atheist or a theist.
As an agnostic I think atheists are equally as silly as theists.
Interesting. not believing, due to lack of evidence, is as silly as believing
despite the lack of evidence.
Post by Dave Thompson
You can't
say that something you can't know doesn't exist,
Perhaps not, but I can say, that there is no logical reason, to believe in
something for which there is no evidence.

I can also say, that the amount of effort put into finding empirical evidence of
the existence of any god, and the revealed evidence, gives me a good and
reasonable basis, to assert the absence of any gods.

To claim that I should believe any, and every, assertion and wild mental
meandering, because I cannot perform a logical fallacy, i.e, prove a negative,
is foolish, in the extreme.
Post by Dave Thompson
or that it's important in
any way to take a position for or against whether or not god exists.
As far as theists are concerned, it is generally accepted that believers take a
position in support of their god.

That usenet atheists take a position WRT the existence of gods, is a response to
theists, invading the atheist NGs, and proselytising.

There is another reason why we do it in usenet: Amusement.
Post by Dave Thompson
One
could define what they thought god was and then say it doesn't exist, but
someone else could simply say natural law was god or existence was god and
you start a whole new argument over the definition.
I don't think we do that. The definition of a god, is irrelevant. Call it a
god, and offer no solid evidence, and we do not believe it, or believe in it.

We will however, argue the contradictions and logical fallacies contained in any
definition of a god, that you offer.
Post by Dave Thompson
Ultimately no one knows and it doesn't matter whether one is right or not as
long as you don't go around believing you know the truth and forcing it on
the other guy.
If theists didn't continually come in here, and raise the issue, I doubt you
would find many atheists discussing whether gods exist or not, and atheist
proselytisers, are few, and far between.

As a generalisation, we care nothing, for what you believe


But you are not actually an agnostic: Are you?


--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.

Plonked by Rob Duncan

Na bister 500,000
Steve Mading
2005-05-06 23:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
As an agnostic I think atheists are equally as silly as theists. You can't
say that something you can't know doesn't exist,
Okay, then give me the $500 you owe me. I have an I.O.U. here that says
you owe it to me.

I challenge you to prove me wrong WITHOUT resorting to the exact same
line of reasoning we atheists use to deny god. The only way to refute
my claim of the I.O.U. is to realize that by asking you to prove it
does NOT exist, I've put the burden of proof on the wrong party.
Dave Thompson
2005-05-07 01:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Mading
Post by Dave Thompson
As an agnostic I think atheists are equally as silly as theists. You can't
say that something you can't know doesn't exist,
Okay, then give me the $500 you owe me. I have an I.O.U. here that says
you owe it to me.
I challenge you to prove me wrong WITHOUT resorting to the exact same
line of reasoning we atheists use to deny god. The only way to refute
my claim of the I.O.U. is to realize that by asking you to prove it
does NOT exist, I've put the burden of proof on the wrong party.
You just defined what it is that you wanted me to refute. We have both seen
IOU's. It's a known tangible object. And one I would have had to created in
the first place.

And I don't have to refute anything. I just don't have to pay you since you
don't have a legal leg to stand on.

In other words, you lost your bet, moron.
greg byshenk
2005-05-07 13:04:02 UTC
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to or.politics.]
Post by Dave Thompson
As an agnostic I think atheists are equally as silly as theists. You can't
say that something you can't know doesn't exist, or that it's important in
any way to take a position for or against whether or not god exists. One
could define what they thought god was and then say it doesn't exist, but
someone else could simply say natural law was god or existence was god and
you start a whole new argument over the definition.
You are coming very close to gibberish.

What is this "something you can't know" you state above? Is this your
definition of 'god'? If so, then 'agnisticism' is the only possible
response, given that you have defined 'god' as "something about which
nothing can be known". Which is fine, so far as it goes.

That said, there are still a few problems. First, your 'god' has
very little to do with the 'god' of most religions and theologies.
Second, your 'god' is essentially an empty concept -- by definition
(and here I do mean 'essentially'; that is, the essence of your 'god'
concept is to be utterly empty).

The problem here is not merely one of "definition", but of what is
the meaning of a concept. Outside of a given theology, the word 'god'
is hopelessly ambiguous, because the _concept_ of 'god' varies from
person to person and theological framework to theological framework.
Even within the major "western" religions "of the book", the Christian
'God' is not equivalent to "JHWH" is not equivalent to "Allah".

Thus, if someone asks "does 'god' exist?", outside of any context, they
are asking a meaningless question; they might as well be asking "does
'fnuh!' exist?" Thus, the only reasonable response is to ask "what do
you mean by 'fnuh!'?" (or by 'god').

If the response is something that is absurd or which can be
demonstrated not to exist, then a reasonable person will answer that
this purpored 'god' does not exist. That is, a 'strong atheist'
position. If the response is something that cannot be determined to
exist or not to exist (for example: 'a creator'), then a reasonable
person will answer that such a 'god' could exist, but that there is no
reason to think that it actually does. That is, a 'weak atheist'
position. If the response is "something about which nothing can be
known", then a reasonable person will answer that the original question
was vacuous, and cannot be sensibly answered. Finally, if the response
is something like "the Earth" or "the Universe", then a reasonable
person will answer that of course the Earth or the Universe exists --
but why would one want to call it 'god'?
Post by Dave Thompson
Ultimately no one knows and it doesn't matter whether one is right or not as
long as you don't go around believing you know the truth and forcing it on
the other guy.
"Ultimately no one knows" _what_, exactly? Are you suggesting that
there is this "entity" about which nothing can be known, and that this
is what "no one knows" about? I place 'entity' in scare-quotes because,
if nothing can be known, then the fact that it is an 'entity' cannot be
known. But this does point to a recursion problem. That is, if nothing
can be known about this "something", then the fact that nothing can be
known about this "something" is _also_ something that cannot be known.
Post by Dave Thompson
atheists and theists. Different sides of the same coin as far as agnostics
are concerned.
But this seems to demand the question: what exactly is it that you are
'agnostic' about? Are you 'agnostic' about 'god'? If so, then what
is the difference between your 'god' and 'fnuh!'?
--
greg byshenk - ***@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL
wcb
2005-05-06 16:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
(snipped)
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously,
and with inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Are you saying anybody who shows good reasons why god does
not exist is "rabid"?

Then what does that say about theists that can't show
good reason god exists and still won't admit it is a bad idea in
face of good evidence god cannot exist?

**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************


By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?

2. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?

3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.

4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.

5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.

6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.

7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.

8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.

9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.

10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.

11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.

12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.

13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.

14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.

15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.

16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.

17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.

18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?

19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.

20. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.

21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.

23. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.

(END)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
George
2005-05-06 16:34:24 UTC
Permalink
(snipped)
Post by wcb
Post by George
Post by Dubh Ghall
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously,
and with inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Are you saying anybody who shows good reasons why god does
not exist is "rabid"?
No, I'm saying that anybody who insists that if
others don't accept his "proof" that it's not
possible for a god to exist as fact, is an "xtian
fanatic", is a rabid atheist.
Post by wcb
Then what does that say about theists that can't show
good reason god exists and still won't admit it is a bad idea in
face of good evidence god cannot exist?
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
20. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
23. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
wcb
2005-05-06 22:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
(snipped)
Post by wcb
Post by George
Post by Dubh Ghall
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously,
and with inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Are you saying anybody who shows good reasons why god does
not exist is "rabid"?
No, I'm saying that anybody who insists that if
others don't accept his "proof" that it's not
possible for a god to exist as fact, is an "xtian
fanatic", is a rabid atheist.
I take the claims of christianity and show it is logically and
rationally impossible for god to exists.

You abandon all reason, logic, facts and rationality and refuse
to even examine my hard evidence, mush less honestly discuss it.

And then you attack me on a ad hominem basis.
You call me a "fanatic" because I put down this
evidnece and expect rational, reasonable, logical
people to admit that indeed these proofs are pretty
good and pretty hard.

What you have done is, ignore facts, truth, logic,
rationality and reason. What does that make you?

A superstitous fanatic who refuses to reason.

It is not I who is the empty, hollow fanatic.
Is it? I put down hard evidence and run it out
to its logical conclusion.
Post by George
Post by wcb
Then what does that say about theists that can't show
good reason god exists and still won't admit it is a bad idea in
face of good evidence god cannot exist?
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
20. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
23. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
A
2005-05-06 22:24:47 UTC
Permalink
(snipped)
Post by wcb
Post by George
Post by wcb
Post by George
Post by Dubh Ghall
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Are you saying anybody who shows good reasons why god does
not exist is "rabid"?
No, I'm saying that anybody who insists that if
others don't accept his "proof" that it's not
possible for a god to exist as fact, is an "xtian
fanatic", is a rabid atheist.
I take the claims of christianity and show it is logically and
rationally impossible for god to exists.
Huh? You were arguing with an agnostic, why take
the "claims of Christianity" then?
Post by wcb
You abandon all reason, logic, facts and rationality and refuse
to even examine my hard evidence, mush less honestly discuss it.
You made a blanket claim that you'd proven that
a god can not exist. I haven't argued for or
against any gods, but I've abandoned all reason
and logic?
Post by wcb
And then you attack me on a ad hominem basis.
You call me a "fanatic" because I put down this
evidnece and expect rational, reasonable, logical
people to admit that indeed these proofs are pretty
good and pretty hard.
LOL. I wasn't the one who used the word "fanatic",
you did. You told him (an agnostic), that he was
coming across as a "theist fanatic", presumably
because he didn't accept your "proof" that a god
can not possibly exist. If you consider "rabit
atheist" an attack for you calling him a "theist
fanatic", so be it.
Post by wcb
What you have done is, ignore facts, truth, logic,
rationality and reason. What does that make you?
Hmmm, I haven't argued for or against gods, but
I did chide you for calling him (an agnostic) a
"theist fanatic" for disagreeing you proved that
a god can't exist. You've accused me of ignoring
facts, truth, rationality and reason. That makes
you a rabid atheist. Hey, that's what I called
you to begin with, so it's not ad hom, is it?
Post by wcb
A superstitous fanatic who refuses to reason.
It is not I who is the empty, hollow fanatic.
Is it? I put down hard evidence and run it out
to its logical conclusion.
The logical conclusion is that you're a fucking
automaton who can't think past your preconceived
notions about people who disagree with you. I
haven't posited any argument for or against gods
in this thread, I only pointed out the obvious:

Not all atheists would agree that you've proven,
or that anybody can prove, it's impossible for
a god to exist. That doesn't mean that therefore
a god does exist, which seems to be the illogical
jump you make about those who discount your so-
called "proof".
wcb
2005-05-07 02:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
(snipped)
Post by wcb
Post by George
Post by wcb
Post by George
Post by Dubh Ghall
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Are you saying anybody who shows good reasons why god does
not exist is "rabid"?
No, I'm saying that anybody who insists that if
others don't accept his "proof" that it's not
possible for a god to exist as fact, is an "xtian
fanatic", is a rabid atheist.
I take the claims of christianity and show it is logically and
rationally impossible for god to exists.
Huh? You were arguing with an agnostic, why take
the "claims of Christianity" then?
Because it is the xian freaks who are trying to do stunts like
throw science out of schools?
The xians are bad enough without their fellow travelors and
useful dupes, the self proclaimed agnostics.

But, and here is the kicker, I show that a whole class of gods cannot
exist.
God that is creator of all, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, a
general, open ended, maximalist type of god. That is not a specific god,
but an entire class.
Jehova, Yahweh, Allah. Brahma, any overarching, general maximalist god
whose partisans claim is omni-everything and creator of all.

So in the greater scheme of things, I am not really taking out the xian
god, but the entire class of maximalist, open ended gods described as
greater than anything that can be imagined.

So if you wanna bitch, look at it from that point of view.
If the US was overrun by moslem dorks, I'd be applying this
strongly to allah.
Post by George
Post by wcb
You abandon all reason, logic, facts and rationality and refuse
to even examine my hard evidence, mush less honestly discuss it.
You made a blanket claim that you'd proven that
a god can not exist. I haven't argued for or
against any gods, but I've abandoned all reason
and logic?
You make claoks that are false, and ignore proof
that your claims are so much balderdash.

You can't reason. Or even deal with evidence when I plop
it down in front of you.

There it is and all you do is pick your nose and
piddle.
And reiterate your foolish claims. What can I say?
You are simply another net fool without much reasoning ability.
Post by George
Post by wcb
And then you attack me on a ad hominem basis.
You call me a "fanatic" because I put down this
evidnece and expect rational, reasonable, logical
people to admit that indeed these proofs are pretty
good and pretty hard.
LOL. I wasn't the one who used the word "fanatic",
you did. You told him (an agnostic), that he was
coming across as a "theist fanatic", presumably
because he didn't accept your "proof" that a god
can not possibly exist. If you consider "rabit
atheist" an attack for you calling him a "theist
fanatic", so be it.
Post by wcb
What you have done is, ignore facts, truth, logic,
rationality and reason. What does that make you?
Hmmm, I haven't argued for or against gods, but
I did chide you for calling him (an agnostic) a
"theist fanatic" for disagreeing you proved that
a god can't exist. You've accused me of ignoring
facts, truth, rationality and reason. That makes
you a rabid atheist. Hey, that's what I called
you to begin with, so it's not ad hom, is it?
Post by wcb
A superstitous fanatic who refuses to reason.
It is not I who is the empty, hollow fanatic.
Is it? I put down hard evidence and run it out
to its logical conclusion.
The logical conclusion is that you're a fucking
automaton who can't think past your preconceived
notions about people who disagree with you. I
haven't posited any argument for or against gods
Not all atheists would agree that you've proven,
or that anybody can prove, it's impossible for
a god to exist. That doesn't mean that therefore
a god does exist, which seems to be the illogical
jump you make about those who discount your so-
called "proof".
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
George
2005-05-07 07:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by wcb
Post by A
Post by wcb
You abandon all reason, logic, facts and rationality and refuse
to even examine my hard evidence, mush less honestly discuss it.
You made a blanket claim that you'd proven that
a god can not exist. I haven't argued for or
against any gods, but I've abandoned all reason
and logic?
You make claoks that are false, and ignore proof
that your claims are so much balderdash.
Exactly what claim is that, Sparky? I
don't recall making any claims. Perhaps
it's the one rattling around in your
brain? You know, the one you imagined.
Post by wcb
You can't reason. Or even deal with evidence when I plop
it down in front of you.
LOL. I chided you for calling an agnostic
a theist fanatic for not accepting your
"proof" that a god can not exist, and I'm
engaging in ad hom and can't reason?
Post by wcb
There it is and all you do is pick your nose and
piddle.
And reiterate your foolish claims. What can I say?
You are simply another net fool without much reasoning ability.
What claim is that, idiot? That your
"argument" has the depth of a parking
lot puddle?
Post by wcb
Post by A
Post by wcb
And then you attack me on a ad hominem basis.
You call me a "fanatic" because I put down this
evidnece and expect rational, reasonable, logical
people to admit that indeed these proofs are pretty
good and pretty hard.
LOL. I wasn't the one who used the word "fanatic",
you did. You told him (an agnostic), that he was
coming across as a "theist fanatic", presumably
because he didn't accept your "proof" that a god
can not possibly exist. If you consider "rabit
atheist" an attack for you calling him a "theist
fanatic", so be it.
Post by wcb
What you have done is, ignore facts, truth, logic,
rationality and reason. What does that make you?
Hmmm, I haven't argued for or against gods, but
I did chide you for calling him (an agnostic) a
"theist fanatic" for disagreeing you proved that
a god can't exist. You've accused me of ignoring
facts, truth, rationality and reason. That makes
you a rabid atheist. Hey, that's what I called
you to begin with, so it's not ad hom, is it?
Post by wcb
A superstitous fanatic who refuses to reason.
It is not I who is the empty, hollow fanatic.
Is it? I put down hard evidence and run it out
to its logical conclusion.
The logical conclusion is that you're a fucking
automaton who can't think past your preconceived
notions about people who disagree with you. I
haven't posited any argument for or against gods
Not all atheists would agree that you've proven,
or that anybody can prove, it's impossible for
a god to exist. That doesn't mean that therefore
a god does exist, which seems to be the illogical
jump you make about those who discount your so-
called "proof".
wcb
2005-05-07 09:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by A
Post by wcb
You abandon all reason, logic, facts and rationality and refuse
to even examine my hard evidence, mush less honestly discuss it.
You made a blanket claim that you'd proven that
a god can not exist. I haven't argued for or
against any gods, but I've abandoned all reason
and logic?
You make claims that are false, and ignore proof
that your claims are so much balderdash.
Exactly what claim is that, Sparky? I
don't recall making any claims. Perhaps
it's the one rattling around in your
brain? You know, the one you imagined.
No, you simply are not capable of thinking.
I slap down hard evidence no omni-everything god
can exist, you ignore the hard evidence and merely rant.

Name calling. Yes, you just went into ad hominem mode
calling me a "fanatic", which of course is not the situationm.
I present hard evidence which you ignore.
That is not fanaticism, it is presenting hard evidence
to show that god as defined is impossible to exist.

You thus lie, ignore the facts of the matter and display
your dishonesty and inability to think.

You are thus shown to be an idiot.

Again, hard evidence. Stuff you are obviously too
stupid to handle.


******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************

1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.

2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful

3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.

4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.

5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.

6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.

7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.

8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.

9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.

10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.

11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.

12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.

13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.

14. Morally evil men and women exist.

15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.

16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.

17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.

(End)

****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************

1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.

2. God is also said to have free will.

3. God is also said to be omnipotent.

4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.

5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?

6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.

7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.

6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.

7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.

8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?

9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.

10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.

(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************

God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent

2. Omniscient

3. Omnibenevolent.

4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.

5. The creator of all.

6. Intelligent and concious, having will.

7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?

8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?

9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.

10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.

11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.

12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.

13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.

14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.

15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.

16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.

17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.

18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.

19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.

20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.

21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.

22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.

23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.

24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.

25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?

26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.

27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.

28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.

29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.

(END)
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-07 04:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Thu, 5 May 2005 18:30:28 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
(snipped)
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which
definition of "belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions,
simultaneously, and with inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
Translation: You aren't a rabid atheist who
claims to have proven it impossible for a
god to exist.
Strong Atheism (also called Explicit Atheism, Positive Atheism) is the belief
that gods do not exist. What does this mean ? It is a belief about reality. More
precisely, the belief that no gods exist in reality (a concept without
existence).

Such a position is held by a small minority of atheists (and does not represent
weak-atheism, which is disbelief in gods, or agnostic atheism, which is
arbitrary disbelief), and is mostly considered to be arrogant and unproven.
Indeed when I presented a first version of this text to a group of atheists,
they, for the most part, jumped on it and argued me away without even reading
the content. Surely strong-atheism must be either a touchy or a very stupid
topic to generate such a drastic response. But perhaps this criticism is correct
: how can such a radical position be argued ?

First of all, we must define what a god is. What definition shall we take ? Let
us define

god = 1. a being 2. creator of the universe 3. possessor of omnis. This might be
said to be a restrictive definition, but it is the one commonly used (the omnis
are not necessary for all the arguments though). As such I take it to be
correct. Since it is a purely Western view (although I disagree with other
instances), it might be understood to be a "narrow" version of atheism (1).
Clearly this topic is beyond the scope of this text, but it can be demonstrated
to be otherwise.

The concept of god is therefore a floating abstraction, whose definition is
taken from stolen concepts. Those stolen concepts are : Existence,
Consciousness, Identity, Life, and others. This is derived from the following 5
contradictions, and 4 minor contradictions, which constitute the rest of this
text. (2)


Since this is not a full-blown discourse, on the footnotes I refer to two books
: "Atheism : The Case Against God" by George Smith, which is a good introduction
to the subject, and "Atheism : A Philosophical Justification" by Michael Martin,
which is an extensive philosophical book on negative and positive atheism. More
detailed explanations of key concepts can be found on the pages or chapters
listed.



Contradiction #1

There is no life or consciousness outside of body (Argument from the
impossibility of supernatural life).

This is a corrolary of minor contradiction #1 (see below).

Consciousness is the quality of being aware of something. This awareness comes
through sensation, thought, emotion and voilition.

Life is the quality that distinguishes a vital and fuctioning body from a dead
body. This distinction is shown by an organismic state characterized by a
capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Those two properties are in direct contradiction with an infinite (and therefore
supernatural and immaterial) being.

One could refute this by saying that I cannot know whenever these definitions
will always hold, and as such cannot know whenever immateriality really can be
alive and conscious or not, thus that I am begging the question.

The answer to this is twofold. First, this objection does not take into account
that words have precise meanings, derived from our own perception of entities.
These meanings are present and actual. No one speaks using potential meaning of
words, in a hypothetical future or that have been used in the past. Such an
objection also posits that the objector is himself omniscient. In effect, what
he is saying is that he, in his omniscience, knows that the possibility exists
that one day these words will be redefined in such a way.
Secondly, it is telling that this objection posits that such concepts as life
and consciousness could be applied to something which nature not only cannot be
defined, but will never be defined (see minor contradiction #1). Properties
which are applied to unmeaningful objects, or in an illogical way, are not
meaningful (3).







Contradiction #2

There are no infinite beings (Argument from the non-actuality of infinity).

This can be formulated as follows.



1. Existants have an identity.

2. The identity of an infinite being is infinite, unlimited.

3. An identity, to exist, must be defined.

4. Anything that is defined, is limited.

5. From 3 and 4, we deduce that an identity must be limited.

6. From 2 and 5, we deduce that an infinite being cannot have an identity.

7. From 1 and 6, we deduce that there cannot be any infinite being.



A rebuttal could be made on intuitive grounds. A mathematical set can be used.
For example, consider a set S of all rational numbers between 0 and 1. The
identity of S is, as we have seen, defined. But it is unlimited in number.
Therefore premise 4 is false.

The answer to this objection is also twofold. First, S is in fact limited (it
has boundaries). But then, let us imagine the set T of all rational numbers. The
set T does not have boundaries. But what about its identity then ? This is in
fact the second part of the answer. The set T is indeed infinite in number and
unbounded, but not unlimited, for it is limited by non-rational numbers. And we
do find that its identity is defined (set of all rational numbers).

Hence to the question, can something defined be unlimited ? we must answer "no",
because being unlimited implies that the object has no limitations, hence
nothing to distinguish it from other objects, and to define it. The only way to
disprove this would be to show how a being could have an unlimited and defined
essence, which is impossible unless you posit the existence of a god. Thus
premise 4 stands to scrutiny.







Contradiction #3

Divine creation is impossible (Cosmological Argument).



The most concrete of the 5 contradictions, it can be shown as follows :



1. Divine creation entails a god taking an empty state of the universe, and
causing all matter to exist, thus making another state of the universe where
there is matter.

2. Without matter, there is no causality.

2b. The absence of causality is equal to the absence of time (by definition).

3. From 1 and 2, we can deduce that an empty state of the universe would entail
absence of causality.

4. From 1 and 3, we can deduce that divine creation is impossible.



A rebuttal could be made againt proposition 1, by arguing that it might be
possible that the god would have created the universe without any prior empty
state. But then this would alter the use of the word "creation" which implies an
earlier state. Otherwise the god would have been created with the universe, thus
not making him the creator.

Another rebuttal that might be put forward would be that, at least in the
christian tradition, a god is supposedly "outside of time", whatever such a
thing means. Even if such a concept is basically meaningless (because of premise
2b), let's analyze if it untangles the contradiction. If we understand being
"outside of time" as being able to act at any point in time as one desires, we
could say that a god could act at the beginning of time, implying that there was
no empty state. But here lies the problem : even if a god is supernatural, if it
is to act in the material "realm", it must act according to its laws. Thus time
would still enter into play.

It would be no use to a supernatural being to be outside of time, if there is no
time at all. What would it then be outside of ? This also brings another problem
: if a god is outside of time, then it is also outside of change.

Confirming this deduction, we have good scientific reasons, given by quantum
cosmology, to believe that the universe has always existed, and that therefore
divine causality would have no time to act on.

Finally, a case could be made that the universe came to existence and that a god
completed its creation by making all the entities inside it. There are two
problems with this : it would also be against the idea of complete creation by
the god, which is implied in the definition. But the strongest objection to it
is that the potentiality would not be there, without this divine creation. The
universe cannot create itself, necessarily. There would be no space, only
nothingness : thus divine causation would have no ground to act on.







Contradiction #4

A god cannot be omniscient or omnipotent (Argument against omnis).

This argument has been well expanded elsewhere (4), so I will merely resume it
here.

A god is omniscient and omnipotent, but is also immaterial. This conflicts
because it then cannot have many kinds of physical and moral knowledge. Indeed
an omniscient god should have physical knowledge but being immaterial, it
cannot. A god should have moral knowledge, but being omnipotent, it cannot.

A rebuttal could be made along the lines that a god is omniscient within its own
limits, i.e. that it can only have knowledge that it can possibly have.

But this is unacceptable, in the sense that then any being who know everything
that it can know can be called omniscient in that sense. Such a meaning reduces
omniscience to a triviality : indeed even humans, or lesser beings, could
theoretically be omniscient in this case.

Here there is an enlightening example that can be made. Imagine a being called
McNose. McNose can only logically know how to scratch its nose and can only have
knowledge relative to nose itching and scratching. If McNose has all the
knowledge relative to these actions and sensations, he could then be called
omniscient, despite the fact that its total knowledge is indeed quite small
compared to a normal human being.

Another flaw in this reasoning is that this does not set aside the major problem
with a god's omniscience : that it cannot logically know some things that humans
can logically know. Even if it is omniscient in the sense described, the paradox
would still stand.







Contradiction #5

Abstract objects, by definition, have no causal properties (Argument from
abstraction).



There are two types of concepts : material objects and abstract objects (5).

From the Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy :



material objects - "an object that causally interacts or inter-relates with
other independently existing things."

abstract object - "an object that is not a material object"



An abstract object is an object that does not causally interact with other
indepedently existing things.

A god, to exist, must be either a material object or an abstract object. But a
god is clearly not material because it is supernatural. It therefore has to be
abstract. If it is abstract, it has no causal properties. Hence it could not
cause anything, let alone the entire universe. Thus divine causation, creation
and omnipotence is impossible.

The problem of how supernatural entities could act on a natural plane is also
called the modus operandi problem.







Contradiction #6

god essence cannot be positively defined.



Indeed the nature of a god, its essence, has never been defined. This is shown
by the use of positive and negative theology. It also seems that a god could
never be thus defined, since it is by definition unobservable in a direct or
indirect manner. Thus the concept of god is basically meaningless, as we do not
know anything about its nature (6).





The concept of gods also implies other contradictions. Note that these following
arguments are not proof of strong atheism but other contradictions that makes
the concept of a god irrelevant or paradoxal (and could possibly be reconfigured
as to make a proof). If they are correct, then we are justified to ignore the
concept of god as irrelevant.







Minor Contradiction #1

gods cannot be proven in any rational way.



This inductive argument is built on the proposition that all theist arguments
have been refuted so far. Since a rational proof of the existence of gods cannot
be built, we can deduce that probably no such proof will ever be proposed.
Indeed we have reasons to think that the best arguments for the existence of
gods ever proposed were those from the past, and not present time. In the words
of Michael Martin :

"I think the arguments that are hardest to meet, are the traditional arguments,
and I am talking in particular about the argument from first cause -
cosmological argument - and the argument from design, I think the oldies are
still the goodies. " (7)

We then have reason to believe that gods will never be proven in any rational
way. Thus our analysis in favour of strong-atheism should remain valid.







Minor Contradiction #2

Occam's Razor - gods are neither a valid or needed explanation for anything



The Occam's Razor is a rule that states that entities should not be multiplied
unnecessarily. When we have two different theories, that can satisfactorily
explain the same facts, we must prefer the simplest theory. The addition of
useless entities brings no explanatory power to the theory.

Here we are presented with two competing theories, theism and atheism, which are
mutually exclusive. Even if we exclude the argumentation presented in this text,
we must still reject the concept of god because 1. It is more complex then
natural processes (unknowable) and 2. It does not explain anything more then
atheism can. Thus the existence of gods can be considered irrelevant.







Minor Contradiction #3

Science, morality and logic presuppose the absence of gods.



Scientific inquiry always assumes that the nature of entities is uniform and
therefore that there are no such things as miracles (a miracle being usually
defined as a break from the law of identity applied to the behaviour of objects,
i.e. to causality). As science's track record so far is excellent, there is
reason to cast doubt on the notion of miracles and divine intervention in
general.



Morality and logic both depend on reality, as any form of knowledge does, and
they are necessarily what they are. But if they were created by a god, then they
become conditional (be it directly on the god's nature or his decisions), which
is a contradiction. Furthermore, particular religious moralities are
contradictory, since religious texts are contradictory on points of morality.



To resume : since religion's epistemological basis is against knowledge, there
is good reason to disbelieve in gods, otherwise we have to reject all forms of
"secular knowledge" like science, morality and logic (and banning logic
effectively bans all of cognition).



The complete version of this argument is called the TANG (Transcendental
Argument for the Non-existence of God) and has been developed recently by
Michael Martin (11).





Many inductive arguments can also be made against the existence of gods, but
since induction does not lead to certainty but probability, they are not
relevant to strong-atheism. More arguments could also be made on the basis of
the omnis taken together, but here is only analyzed omniscience, omnipotence and
the infinity that results from the posession of omnis (10).

All comments are welcome, feel free to email me at ***@sympatico.ca . Points
of dissention or omitted arguments are also welcome.

(1) For more information on narrow and broad atheism, see Atheism : A
Philosophical Justification (Michael Martin), p 464-465.

(2) All definitions taken from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

(3) Identity, the last axiom not covered, could be used in a variant of
contradiction #2 (but for clarification we used the Thomist notion of essence).
Thus we find that the concept of god denies all three axioms of thought.

(4) For a detailed explanation of this argument, see A:APJ p287-297.

(5) Some philosophers argue for a third realm of "souls" in which they include
gods. Unfortunately this can only be achieved by circular reasoning, since we
know of no other objects belonging to this category and cannot prove that any
object could theoretically belong to said category.

(6) For details on this whole argument, please consult Atheism : The Case
Against God (George Smith), p51-60.

(7) "An interview with Prof. Martin", http://atheism.org.il/inter.html

(8) The TANG (Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God) presents
such an argument. It it applied to Christianity but can be taken also in a
general theistic concept (divine intervention). See the TANG on paragraph 4,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html

(9) See A:TGAG, chapter 4-7, for a complete refutation of faith as
epistemiological device.

(10) See A:APJ, chapter 12,13,14.

(11) For the text of TANG, see
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
Dave Thompson
2005-05-06 16:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
Faith, is to believe where there is neither evidence, nor logic, to support your
belief.
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
So you have managed to drone on without addressing the point.
Congratulations.
It wasn't about atheism, it was about atheists.
Funny thing, about atheists, and atheism; You never seem to find one, without
the other.
Funny thing that they all don't think the same as well.
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
Sorry, but it is relevant. Not all Christians believe the same just because
they are Christians. An evangelical does not believe or think the same way
as a unitarian who sees the bible as a work of philosophy rather than
miracles.

Within the group that can be called unbelievers or skeptics there are
varying degrees of belief as well. My brother is an atheist and really
couldn't care less about religion or atheism. His wife goes to church and it
doesn't create any friction. My brother in law is adamant that there is no
god, says that he lives his life according to that, and if his wife became
religious or went to church I'm sure that would be an end to it. Both share
atheism but their beliefs differ.
Post by Dubh Ghall
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
That's your strawman. Belief was never limited to superstition in this
thread.
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
No, you are coming across as an atheist fanatic unwilling to accept that
there might be varying degrees of belief among atheists.
Dubh Ghall
2005-05-06 23:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs.
I agree, but it is quite irrelevant to anything you are saying.
Sorry, but it is relevant. Not all Christians believe the same just because
they are Christians. An evangelical does not believe or think the same way
as a unitarian who sees the bible as a work of philosophy rather than
miracles.
Within the group that can be called unbelievers or skeptics there are
varying degrees of belief as well. My brother is an atheist and really
couldn't care less about religion or atheism. His wife goes to church and it
doesn't create any friction. My brother in law is adamant that there is no
god, says that he lives his life according to that, and if his wife became
religious or went to church I'm sure that would be an end to it. Both share
atheism but their beliefs differ.
Post by Dubh Ghall
I believe a great many things; But none of them are founded in superstition.
That's your strawman. Belief was never limited to superstition in this
thread.
I never claimed it was.

You OTOH, are trying to say that believing that "holding my hand in the fire
will cause pain and damage", is the same as a superstitious "belief in deity"

If that is not your intent, then you need to better qualify your assertions, to
make it clear exactly what it is that you do mean.
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
Post by Dave Thompson
The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Whether that makes sense or not, depends largely on which definition of
"belief", you are using.
You seem to be trying to use all possible definitions, simultaneously, and with
inevitable results.
By the by. You are coming across as more of a xtian fanatic, than an agnostic.
No, you are coming across as an atheist fanatic unwilling to accept that
there might be varying degrees of belief among atheists.
With regard to what?

--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.

Plonked by Rob Duncan

Na bister 500,000
robpar
2005-05-06 16:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
So you have managed to drone on without addressing the point.
Congratulations.
It wasn't about atheism, it was about atheists. Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs. The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is not
a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other beliefs,
each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil con
games.
George
2005-05-06 16:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by robpar
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
So you have managed to drone on without addressing the point.
Congratulations.
It wasn't about atheism, it was about atheists. Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs. The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is not
a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other beliefs,
each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil con
games.
The point that you're missing is that some atheists
claim that they've "proven" it impossible for a
god to exist. Since most atheists would deny such
a thing is possible (proof on nonexistence), it is
an expression of belief, like this one from W.B.:

******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************

1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.

2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful

3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.

4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.

5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.

6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.

7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.

8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.

9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.

10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.

11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.

12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.

13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.

14. Morally evil men and women exist.

15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.

16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.

17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.

(End)

****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************

1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.

2. God is also said to have free will.

3. God is also said to be omnipotent.

4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.

5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?

6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.

7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.

6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.

7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.

8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?

9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.

10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.

(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************

God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent

2. Omniscient

3. Omnibenevolent.

4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.

5. The creator of all.

6. Intelligent and concious, having will.

7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?

8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?

9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.

10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.

11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.

12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.

13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.

14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.

15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.

16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.

17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.

18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.

19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.

20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.

21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.

22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.

23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.

24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.

25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?

26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.

27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.

28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.

29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.

(END)

**************************************************

God Disproven - Part 2

There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.

At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.

It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.

God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.

Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.

Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.

There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.

But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.

A few quotes from the experts:

"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992

Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."

William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"

"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994

Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."

Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."

"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001

Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."

Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".


**************************************************

**********************************
God Disproven Number 3
**********************************

Romans 11:7-8
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for; but the election hath obtained it; and the
rest were blinded.
(According as it is written, God hath given them
the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not
see, ears that they should not hear) unto this
day.

Many christians claim god gave us free will,
but here we see that that in fact, god is
said to blind many to spiritual truth. So
in fact, free will means nothing to god. Here
Paul is trying to explain why Israel has rejected
Jesus as a messiah.

Thus, if god does not care about free will, and even
denies men free will by so blinding them, free will is
no longer an arguable claim if the bible is true.
If god is omnibenevolent, then he would be duty
bound to make all men believers and all men capable
of only doing moral good. If he could do so, and
does not he is not omnibenevolent.

So a benevolent god that does not care about free will
cannot exist in a world where we see unbelief and moral
evil.
*********

Most theologians in the past have agreed god has free will.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica made that quite explicit.
Yet all theologians also agree god is omnibenevolent.
That is he has free will yet can only do good, never evil.
Yet many apologists tell us man needs free will and thus
ability to do evil. This is to get god off the hook for
existance of evil.
But as god can have a good nature and free will, so can man.
That argument is no longer viable.

But if god can make man with a god like free will
and good nature incapable of never doing moral
evil and fails to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil and is evil himself.

That we live in a world where moral evil exists proves
an omnibenevolent god is nonexistant.

**********

God is said to be omnipotent.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
If yes he cannot lift such a rock and thus is
non-omnipotent. If no, he cannot create such a
rock and is non-omnipotent.
Omnipotent is a self destructing concept that cannot
exist in reality. It is literally nonsense, incoherent,
impossible.
Thus an omnipotent god is not possible.

***********

Is god omnipotent? In Judges 1:19, god
cannot deal with iron chariots.

And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive
out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had
chariots of iron.

An inventive and intelligent god would have
made the chariot wheels fall off or killed
the horses such as he killed all the cattle
of Egypt in Exodus 9:6.

If the bible is true, there is no omnipotent god.
If apologists wish to claim there is such and
omnipotent god, they have to admit the bible is
false and rather silly.

***********

God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.

In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die.

The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this lie
would not achieve its goal.

Again, if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.

***********

Is god omnibenevolent? By all claims, yes.
That is god must always do good and never evil.
But if he can never do evil, then there is
god cannot do, evil. Thus he has no free will
after all. And there is something he cannot do.
Evil. He is not omnipotent.

Thus a an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god with
free will cannot exist as claimed. Theology has
pretended to solve this problem by essentially
redefining free will and omnipotent in a very
dishonest manner and hoping nobody ever noticed.

And of course there was always the torture chamber
for those who might be honest.

************

Exodus Chapter 5

5:4
And it came to pass by the way into the inn
that the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill
him. Then Zipporah (Moses's wife see Exodus 2;21)
took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her
son and cast it at his feet, and said, surely
a bloody husband thou art to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband
thou art because of the circumcission.

This bizaare tale presents god as being unable
to kill Moses in a personal attack upon his
person bodily.

Thus if the bible is true, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. This is one tale you will not hear
preached from the local pulpits.

A god incapable of killing a solitary Israelite
in an ambush outside an inn isn't much of a god.

****************

(End)
***********************************************
God Disproven Omniscience #1
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
***********************************************

God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.

In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die."

The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this
lie would not achieve its goal.

Thus if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.

(End)
wcb
2005-05-06 22:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by robpar
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
So you have managed to drone on without addressing the point.
Congratulations.
It wasn't about atheism, it was about atheists. Atheism may not be a
belief, but atheists have beliefs. The degree to which they believe and
the importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is not
a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other beliefs,
each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil con
games.
The point that you're missing is that some atheists
claim that they've "proven" it impossible for a
god to exist. Since most atheists would deny such
a thing is possible (proof on nonexistence), it is
What I do is, take the claims of theology and see if they
withstand scrutiny.
They do not.

Now, that is important. If it is true, theology is
nonsense, and all claims that hang of disproven claims
are also false.

I note that you do not bother, in the least, to
state where I may be wrong. You simply ignore the
argument and indulge in ad hominem name calling.

I am not a fanatic. I am simply a hard Atheist who has
thought a fair amount on this matter and supported my hard
Atheism with the best arguments I can devise.

To ignore the argumenst all togeather, which you do, and
indulge in only name calling, which is all you do is
bullshit. Whether you are a theist, an dagnostic, or
a fellow atheist.

With simple arguments, I can take out the general
maximalist god of theology. Its a class of gods.
This takes out specific gods of that class, Jehovah,
Allah, others.

It takes out then, all sub-assertions, about Jesus or
Mohammed.

Or claims god has anything to to with the nature of
the Universe, morality, or anything else. Thus, if true,
these are important arguments to the debate "does god
exist?".

You instead, wish to ignore all I write and call
me names. And not bother with my arguments in the
very least. This is simple minded foolishness.

Strong Atheism can indeed show god cannot exist.
And that is important in an age where god believers
are dragging us back to the dark ages.

Not that you seem to notice or care.
Why don't you care? Why do you wish to attack me,
on a personal basis, but not even bother to look at
my evidence?

When did putting forth good, true, reasonable,
rational, logical arguments become "fanaticism"?
Just because a net kook like you said so?
Post by George
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************
1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.
2. God is also said to have free will.
3. God is also said to be omnipotent.
4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.
5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?
6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.
7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.
6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.
7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.
8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?
9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.
10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.
(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent.
4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.
5. The creator of all.
6. Intelligent and concious, having will.
7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.
16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.
21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
**************************************************
**********************************
God Disproven Number 3
**********************************
Romans 11:7-8
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for; but the election hath obtained it; and the
rest were blinded.
(According as it is written, God hath given them
the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not
see, ears that they should not hear) unto this
day.
Many christians claim god gave us free will,
but here we see that that in fact, god is
said to blind many to spiritual truth. So
in fact, free will means nothing to god. Here
Paul is trying to explain why Israel has rejected
Jesus as a messiah.
Thus, if god does not care about free will, and even
denies men free will by so blinding them, free will is
no longer an arguable claim if the bible is true.
If god is omnibenevolent, then he would be duty
bound to make all men believers and all men capable
of only doing moral good. If he could do so, and
does not he is not omnibenevolent.
So a benevolent god that does not care about free will
cannot exist in a world where we see unbelief and moral
evil.
*********
Most theologians in the past have agreed god has free will.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica made that quite explicit.
Yet all theologians also agree god is omnibenevolent.
That is he has free will yet can only do good, never evil.
Yet many apologists tell us man needs free will and thus
ability to do evil. This is to get god off the hook for
existance of evil.
But as god can have a good nature and free will, so can man.
That argument is no longer viable.
But if god can make man with a god like free will
and good nature incapable of never doing moral
evil and fails to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil and is evil himself.
That we live in a world where moral evil exists proves
an omnibenevolent god is nonexistant.
**********
God is said to be omnipotent.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
If yes he cannot lift such a rock and thus is
non-omnipotent. If no, he cannot create such a
rock and is non-omnipotent.
Omnipotent is a self destructing concept that cannot
exist in reality. It is literally nonsense, incoherent,
impossible.
Thus an omnipotent god is not possible.
***********
Is god omnipotent? In Judges 1:19, god
cannot deal with iron chariots.
And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive
out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had
chariots of iron.
An inventive and intelligent god would have
made the chariot wheels fall off or killed
the horses such as he killed all the cattle
of Egypt in Exodus 9:6.
If the bible is true, there is no omnipotent god.
If apologists wish to claim there is such and
omnipotent god, they have to admit the bible is
false and rather silly.
***********
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die.
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this lie
would not achieve its goal.
Again, if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
***********
Is god omnibenevolent? By all claims, yes.
That is god must always do good and never evil.
But if he can never do evil, then there is
god cannot do, evil. Thus he has no free will
after all. And there is something he cannot do.
Evil. He is not omnipotent.
Thus a an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god with
free will cannot exist as claimed. Theology has
pretended to solve this problem by essentially
redefining free will and omnipotent in a very
dishonest manner and hoping nobody ever noticed.
And of course there was always the torture chamber
for those who might be honest.
************
Exodus Chapter 5
5:4
And it came to pass by the way into the inn
that the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill
him. Then Zipporah (Moses's wife see Exodus 2;21)
took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her
son and cast it at his feet, and said, surely
a bloody husband thou art to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband
thou art because of the circumcission.
This bizaare tale presents god as being unable
to kill Moses in a personal attack upon his
person bodily.
Thus if the bible is true, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. This is one tale you will not hear
preached from the local pulpits.
A god incapable of killing a solitary Israelite
in an ambush outside an inn isn't much of a god.
****************
(End)
***********************************************
God Disproven Omniscience #1
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
***********************************************
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die."
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this
lie would not achieve its goal.
Thus if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
(End)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
K Smythe
2005-05-06 22:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by robpar
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is not
a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other beliefs,
each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil con
games.
The point that you're missing is that some atheists
claim that they've "proven" it impossible for a
god to exist. Since most atheists would deny such
a thing is possible (proof on nonexistence), it is
<snipped sophistry>

Note that in every single one of those "proofs" he relies entirely on
specific religions.

Being agnostic doesn't simply mean that you don't know if Christians
or Muslims or Hindus are worshipping the "real" god(s).

It's simply an admission that we cannot know thata there is(are) no
god(s).
wcb
2005-05-07 02:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Smythe
Post by George
Post by robpar
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is not
a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other beliefs,
each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil con
games.
The point that you're missing is that some atheists
claim that they've "proven" it impossible for a
god to exist. Since most atheists would deny such
a thing is possible (proof on nonexistence), it is
<snipped sophistry>
Note that in every single one of those "proofs" he relies entirely on
specific religions.
Uhhhhhhh! No. You don't seem to get it do you?
I am generally, attacking maximalist, open ended,
nonspecific gods actually.

Its a class of gods, gods that supposedly created all,
and are omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
All fail, its a class of gods that fails.

All omni-everything creator gods have the same fatal flaws,
whether you call it Yawyeh, God almighty, Brahma, or Allah.

Omnibenevolence and omnipotence yeilds the problem of evil.
Theologians try to excuse that on grounds of free will.
But god's creatorship of all and omniscience
show free wil cannot exist evenin principle.
This takes out all possible maximalist gods.

You didn't catch that, even though I have pointed that out
at least 25 times this week?

What does it take? 125 times? Will I have to post all of this
125 times to you before you finally god "Duhhhhhh! I think I
am beginning to understand this?".

I though the christians were stupid. Then I debated agnostics.
Post by K Smythe
Being agnostic doesn't simply mean that you don't know if Christians
or Muslims or Hindus are worshipping the "real" god(s).
It's simply an admission that we cannot know thata there is(are) no
god(s).
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
George
2005-05-07 07:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by wcb
Post by K Smythe
Post by George
Post by robpar
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is not
a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other beliefs,
each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil con
games.
The point that you're missing is that some atheists
claim that they've "proven" it impossible for a
god to exist. Since most atheists would deny such
a thing is possible (proof on nonexistence), it is
<snipped sophistry>
Note that in every single one of those "proofs" he relies entirely on
specific religions.
Uhhhhhhh! No. You don't seem to get it do you?
I am generally, attacking maximalist, open ended,
nonspecific gods actually.
Its a class of gods, gods that supposedly created all,
and are omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
All fail, its a class of gods that fails.
All omni-everything creator gods have the same fatal flaws,
whether you call it Yawyeh, God almighty, Brahma, or Allah.
Omnibenevolence and omnipotence yeilds the problem of evil.
Theologians try to excuse that on grounds of free will.
But god's creatorship of all and omniscience
show free wil cannot exist evenin principle.
This takes out all possible maximalist gods.
You didn't catch that, even though I have pointed that out
at least 25 times this week?
What does it take? 125 times? Will I have to post all of this
125 times to you before you finally god "Duhhhhhh! I think I
am beginning to understand this?".
Here's a hint for you: Banging your shoe
on the desk 25 times and repeating the
same gibberish that you've convinced
yourself is a theological work of genius
doesn't prove anything other than your
inability to think beyond a 3rd grader.
Post by wcb
I though the christians were stupid. Then I debated agnostics.
Try re-reading your posts if you want
a real laugh.
Post by wcb
Post by K Smythe
Being agnostic doesn't simply mean that you don't know if Christians
or Muslims or Hindus are worshipping the "real" god(s).
It's simply an admission that we cannot know thata there is(are) no
god(s).
wcb
2005-05-07 09:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by wcb
Post by K Smythe
Post by George
Post by robpar
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is not
a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other beliefs,
each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil con
games.
The point that you're missing is that some atheists
claim that they've "proven" it impossible for a
god to exist. Since most atheists would deny such
a thing is possible (proof on nonexistence), it is
<snipped sophistry>
Note that in every single one of those "proofs" he relies entirely on
specific religions.
Uhhhhhhh! No. You don't seem to get it do you?
I am generally, attacking maximalist, open ended,
nonspecific gods actually.
Its a class of gods, gods that supposedly created all,
and are omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
All fail, its a class of gods that fails.
All omni-everything creator gods have the same fatal flaws,
whether you call it Yawyeh, God almighty, Brahma, or Allah.
Omnibenevolence and omnipotence yeilds the problem of evil.
Theologians try to excuse that on grounds of free will.
But god's creatorship of all and omniscience
show free wil cannot exist evenin principle.
This takes out all possible maximalist gods.
You didn't catch that, even though I have pointed that out
at least 25 times this week?
What does it take? 125 times? Will I have to post all of this
125 times to you before you finally god "Duhhhhhh! I think I
am beginning to understand this?".
Here's a hint for you: Banging your shoe
on the desk 25 times and repeating the
same gibberish that you've convinced
yourself is a theological work of genius
doesn't prove anything other than your
inability to think beyond a 3rd grader.
Here's a clue, ignoring truth, hard evidence, being
unreasonable, irrational and stupid again and again isn't cool.

You are an ineducatable, terminally stupid jerk.

It is obvious posting hard evidence for you 1000
times would not do the trick, because your meager
mental capabilities can't deal with simple logic,
small facts or rational thinking.

You are animal grunting stupid and you can't think,
even if you wanted to, which you don't.

I present facts, reason, logic and you simply dismiss it as
Banging a shoe" without dealing with a single word of the arguments I
presneted here.

That demonstrates your stupidity.
Here on teh net, you do have a limited amount of credibility
when barging into a newsgroup, and here on AA, you have wasted it all
by being a name calling jerk incapable of reasoned debate.

Your meager supply of net credibility is gone.

And still my arguments stand. You simply haven't got
what it takes to either read them and understand then, or
show I am wrong.

You deal strictly in lies and ad hominems.
You lose.

******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************

1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.

2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful

3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.

4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.

5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.

6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.

7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.

8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.

9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.

10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.

11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.

12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.

13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.

14. Morally evil men and women exist.

15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.

16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.

17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.

(End)

****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************

1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.

2. God is also said to have free will.

3. God is also said to be omnipotent.

4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.

5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?

6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.

7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.

6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.

7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.

8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?

9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.

10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.

(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************

God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent

2. Omniscient

3. Omnibenevolent.

4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.

5. The creator of all.

6. Intelligent and concious, having will.

7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?

8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?

9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.

10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.

11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.

12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.

13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.

14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.

15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.

16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.

17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.

18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.

19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.

20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.

21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.

22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.

23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.

24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.

25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?

26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.

27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.

28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.

29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.

(END)






--
Cheerful Charlie
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-07 04:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Thu, 5 May 2005 18:30:28 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
So you have managed to drone on without addressing the point.
Congratulations.
It wasn't about atheism, it was about atheists. Atheism may not
be a belief, but atheists have beliefs. The degree to which they
believe and the importance that is placed on it determines what
they are.
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is
not a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other
beliefs, each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a
deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil
con games.
The point that you're missing is that some atheists
claim that they've "proven" it impossible for a
god to exist. Since most atheists would deny such
a thing is possible (proof on nonexistence), it is
an expression of belief.
No, it's a logical disproof.

Strong Atheism (also called Explicit Atheism, Positive Atheism) is the belief
that gods do not exist. What does this mean ? It is a belief about reality. More
precisely, the belief that no gods exist in reality (a concept without
existence).

Such a position is held by a small minority of atheists (and does not represent
weak-atheism, which is disbelief in gods, or agnostic atheism, which is
arbitrary disbelief), and is mostly considered to be arrogant and unproven.
Indeed when I presented a first version of this text to a group of atheists,
they, for the most part, jumped on it and argued me away without even reading
the content. Surely strong-atheism must be either a touchy or a very stupid
topic to generate such a drastic response. But perhaps this criticism is correct
: how can such a radical position be argued ?

First of all, we must define what a god is. What definition shall we take ? Let
us define

god = 1. a being 2. creator of the universe 3. possessor of omnis. This might be
said to be a restrictive definition, but it is the one commonly used (the omnis
are not necessary for all the arguments though). As such I take it to be
correct. Since it is a purely Western view (although I disagree with other
instances), it might be understood to be a "narrow" version of atheism (1).
Clearly this topic is beyond the scope of this text, but it can be demonstrated
to be otherwise.

The concept of god is therefore a floating abstraction, whose definition is
taken from stolen concepts. Those stolen concepts are : Existence,
Consciousness, Identity, Life, and others. This is derived from the following 5
contradictions, and 4 minor contradictions, which constitute the rest of this
text. (2)


Since this is not a full-blown discourse, on the footnotes I refer to two books
: "Atheism : The Case Against God" by George Smith, which is a good introduction
to the subject, and "Atheism : A Philosophical Justification" by Michael Martin,
which is an extensive philosophical book on negative and positive atheism. More
detailed explanations of key concepts can be found on the pages or chapters
listed.



Contradiction #1

There is no life or consciousness outside of body (Argument from the
impossibility of supernatural life).

This is a corrolary of minor contradiction #1 (see below).

Consciousness is the quality of being aware of something. This awareness comes
through sensation, thought, emotion and voilition.

Life is the quality that distinguishes a vital and fuctioning body from a dead
body. This distinction is shown by an organismic state characterized by a
capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Those two properties are in direct contradiction with an infinite (and therefore
supernatural and immaterial) being.

One could refute this by saying that I cannot know whenever these definitions
will always hold, and as such cannot know whenever immateriality really can be
alive and conscious or not, thus that I am begging the question.

The answer to this is twofold. First, this objection does not take into account
that words have precise meanings, derived from our own perception of entities.
These meanings are present and actual. No one speaks using potential meaning of
words, in a hypothetical future or that have been used in the past. Such an
objection also posits that the objector is himself omniscient. In effect, what
he is saying is that he, in his omniscience, knows that the possibility exists
that one day these words will be redefined in such a way.
Secondly, it is telling that this objection posits that such concepts as life
and consciousness could be applied to something which nature not only cannot be
defined, but will never be defined (see minor contradiction #1). Properties
which are applied to unmeaningful objects, or in an illogical way, are not
meaningful (3).



Contradiction #2

There are no infinite beings (Argument from the non-actuality of infinity).

This can be formulated as follows.



1. Existants have an identity.

2. The identity of an infinite being is infinite, unlimited.

3. An identity, to exist, must be defined.

4. Anything that is defined, is limited.

5. From 3 and 4, we deduce that an identity must be limited.

6. From 2 and 5, we deduce that an infinite being cannot have an identity.

7. From 1 and 6, we deduce that there cannot be any infinite being.



A rebuttal could be made on intuitive grounds. A mathematical set can be used.
For example, consider a set S of all rational numbers between 0 and 1. The
identity of S is, as we have seen, defined. But it is unlimited in number.
Therefore premise 4 is false.

The answer to this objection is also twofold. First, S is in fact limited (it
has boundaries). But then, let us imagine the set T of all rational numbers. The
set T does not have boundaries. But what about its identity then ? This is in
fact the second part of the answer. The set T is indeed infinite in number and
unbounded, but not unlimited, for it is limited by non-rational numbers. And we
do find that its identity is defined (set of all rational numbers).

Hence to the question, can something defined be unlimited ? we must answer "no",
because being unlimited implies that the object has no limitations, hence
nothing to distinguish it from other objects, and to define it. The only way to
disprove this would be to show how a being could have an unlimited and defined
essence, which is impossible unless you posit the existence of a god. Thus
premise 4 stands to scrutiny.



Contradiction #3

Divine creation is impossible (Cosmological Argument).


The most concrete of the 5 contradictions, it can be shown as follows :


1. Divine creation entails a god taking an empty state of the universe, and
causing all matter to exist, thus making another state of the universe where
there is matter.

2. Without matter, there is no causality.

2b. The absence of causality is equal to the absence of time (by definition).

3. From 1 and 2, we can deduce that an empty state of the universe would entail
absence of causality.

4. From 1 and 3, we can deduce that divine creation is impossible.


A rebuttal could be made againt proposition 1, by arguing that it might be
possible that the god would have created the universe without any prior empty
state. But then this would alter the use of the word "creation" which implies an
earlier state. Otherwise the god would have been created with the universe, thus
not making him the creator.

Another rebuttal that might be put forward would be that, at least in the
christian tradition, a god is supposedly "outside of time", whatever such a
thing means. Even if such a concept is basically meaningless (because of premise
2b), let's analyze if it untangles the contradiction. If we understand being
"outside of time" as being able to act at any point in time as one desires, we
could say that a god could act at the beginning of time, implying that there was
no empty state. But here lies the problem : even if a god is supernatural, if it
is to act in the material "realm", it must act according to its laws. Thus time
would still enter into play.

It would be no use to a supernatural being to be outside of time, if there is no
time at all. What would it then be outside of ? This also brings another problem
: if a god is outside of time, then it is also outside of change.

Confirming this deduction, we have good scientific reasons, given by quantum
cosmology, to believe that the universe has always existed, and that therefore
divine causality would have no time to act on.

Finally, a case could be made that the universe came to existence and that a god
completed its creation by making all the entities inside it. There are two
problems with this : it would also be against the idea of complete creation by
the god, which is implied in the definition. But the strongest objection to it
is that the potentiality would not be there, without this divine creation. The
universe cannot create itself, necessarily. There would be no space, only
nothingness : thus divine causation would have no ground to act on.



Contradiction #4

A god cannot be omniscient or omnipotent (Argument against omnis).

This argument has been well expanded elsewhere (4), so I will merely resume it
here.

A god is omniscient and omnipotent, but is also immaterial. This conflicts
because it then cannot have many kinds of physical and moral knowledge. Indeed
an omniscient god should have physical knowledge but being immaterial, it
cannot. A god should have moral knowledge, but being omnipotent, it cannot.

A rebuttal could be made along the lines that a god is omniscient within its own
limits, i.e. that it can only have knowledge that it can possibly have.

But this is unacceptable, in the sense that then any being who know everything
that it can know can be called omniscient in that sense. Such a meaning reduces
omniscience to a triviality : indeed even humans, or lesser beings, could
theoretically be omniscient in this case.

Here there is an enlightening example that can be made. Imagine a being called
McNose. McNose can only logically know how to scratch its nose and can only have
knowledge relative to nose itching and scratching. If McNose has all the
knowledge relative to these actions and sensations, he could then be called
omniscient, despite the fact that its total knowledge is indeed quite small
compared to a normal human being.

Another flaw in this reasoning is that this does not set aside the major problem
with a god's omniscience : that it cannot logically know some things that humans
can logically know. Even if it is omniscient in the sense described, the paradox
would still stand.



Contradiction #5

Abstract objects, by definition, have no causal properties (Argument from
abstraction).


There are two types of concepts : material objects and abstract objects (5).

From the Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy :

material objects - "an object that causally interacts or inter-relates with
other independently existing things."

abstract object - "an object that is not a material object"

An abstract object is an object that does not causally interact with other
indepedently existing things.

A god, to exist, must be either a material object or an abstract object. But a
god is clearly not material because it is supernatural. It therefore has to be
abstract. If it is abstract, it has no causal properties. Hence it could not
cause anything, let alone the entire universe. Thus divine causation, creation
and omnipotence is impossible.

The problem of how supernatural entities could act on a natural plane is also
called the modus operandi problem.




Contradiction #6

god essence cannot be positively defined.



Indeed the nature of a god, its essence, has never been defined. This is shown
by the use of positive and negative theology. It also seems that a god could
never be thus defined, since it is by definition unobservable in a direct or
indirect manner. Thus the concept of god is basically meaningless, as we do not
know anything about its nature (6).


The concept of gods also implies other contradictions. Note that these following
arguments are not proof of strong atheism but other contradictions that makes
the concept of a god irrelevant or paradoxal (and could possibly be reconfigured
as to make a proof). If they are correct, then we are justified to ignore the
concept of god as irrelevant.



Minor Contradiction #1

gods cannot be proven in any rational way.



This inductive argument is built on the proposition that all theist arguments
have been refuted so far. Since a rational proof of the existence of gods cannot
be built, we can deduce that probably no such proof will ever be proposed.
Indeed we have reasons to think that the best arguments for the existence of
gods ever proposed were those from the past, and not present time. In the words
of Michael Martin :

"I think the arguments that are hardest to meet, are the traditional arguments,
and I am talking in particular about the argument from first cause -
cosmological argument - and the argument from design, I think the oldies are
still the goodies. " (7)

We then have reason to believe that gods will never be proven in any rational
way. Thus our analysis in favour of strong-atheism should remain valid.



Minor Contradiction #2

Occam's Razor - gods are neither a valid or needed explanation for anything



The Occam's Razor is a rule that states that entities should not be multiplied
unnecessarily. When we have two different theories, that can satisfactorily
explain the same facts, we must prefer the simplest theory. The addition of
useless entities brings no explanatory power to the theory.

Here we are presented with two competing theories, theism and atheism, which are
mutually exclusive. Even if we exclude the argumentation presented in this text,
we must still reject the concept of god because 1. It is more complex then
natural processes (unknowable) and 2. It does not explain anything more then
atheism can. Thus the existence of gods can be considered irrelevant.



Minor Contradiction #3

Science, morality and logic presuppose the absence of gods.


Scientific inquiry always assumes that the nature of entities is uniform and
therefore that there are no such things as miracles (a miracle being usually
defined as a break from the law of identity applied to the behaviour of objects,
i.e. to causality). As science's track record so far is excellent, there is
reason to cast doubt on the notion of miracles and divine intervention in
general.



Morality and logic both depend on reality, as any form of knowledge does, and
they are necessarily what they are. But if they were created by a god, then they
become conditional (be it directly on the god's nature or his decisions), which
is a contradiction. Furthermore, particular religious moralities are
contradictory, since religious texts are contradictory on points of morality.



To resume : since religion's epistemological basis is against knowledge, there
is good reason to disbelieve in gods, otherwise we have to reject all forms of
"secular knowledge" like science, morality and logic (and banning logic
effectively bans all of cognition).



The complete version of this argument is called the TANG (Transcendental
Argument for the Non-existence of God) and has been developed recently by
Michael Martin (11).


Many inductive arguments can also be made against the existence of gods, but
since induction does not lead to certainty but probability, they are not
relevant to strong-atheism. More arguments could also be made on the basis of
the omnis taken together, but here is only analyzed omniscience, omnipotence and
the infinity that results from the posession of omnis (10).

All comments are welcome, feel free to email me at ***@sympatico.ca . Points
of dissention or omitted arguments are also welcome.

(1) For more information on narrow and broad atheism, see Atheism : A
Philosophical Justification (Michael Martin), p 464-465.

(2) All definitions taken from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

(3) Identity, the last axiom not covered, could be used in a variant of
contradiction #2 (but for clarification we used the Thomist notion of essence).
Thus we find that the concept of god denies all three axioms of thought.

(4) For a detailed explanation of this argument, see A:APJ p287-297.

(5) Some philosophers argue for a third realm of "souls" in which they include
gods. Unfortunately this can only be achieved by circular reasoning, since we
know of no other objects belonging to this category and cannot prove that any
object could theoretically belong to said category.

(6) For details on this whole argument, please consult Atheism : The Case
Against God (George Smith), p51-60.

(7) "An interview with Prof. Martin", http://atheism.org.il/inter.html

(8) The TANG (Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God) presents
such an argument. It it applied to Christianity but can be taken also in a
general theistic concept (divine intervention). See the TANG on paragraph 4,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html

(9) See A:TGAG, chapter 4-7, for a complete refutation of faith as
epistemiological device.

(10) See A:APJ, chapter 12,13,14.

(11) For the text of TANG, see
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
greg byshenk
2005-05-07 10:48:53 UTC
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to or.politics.]
Post by George
The point that you're missing is that some atheists
claim that they've "proven" it impossible for a
god to exist. Since most atheists would deny such
a thing is possible (proof on nonexistence), it is
It's not clear exactly what you are trying to say, here, but if I
understand it rightly, you are confused on a couple of points.

First, "proof of nonexistence" is indeed possible, at least in some
cases. Some supposed things are impossible, and therefore by
definition nonexistent. Other things can be proven not to exist,
if sufficiently specified (to the extent that any empirical claims
can be proven).

Such may hold for any purported 'gods'. Whether 'god' exists, and
whether it is possible to demonstrate that 'god' does or does not
exist, depends first upon what one means by 'god', and second upon
whether what one means is sufficiently specific to admit of
demonstration (one way or the other).
--
greg byshenk - ***@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL
Dave Thompson
2005-05-06 16:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by robpar
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
So you have managed to drone on without addressing the point.
Congratulations.
It wasn't about atheism, it was about atheists. Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs. The degree to which they believe and the
importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is not
a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other beliefs,
each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil con
games.
So do I, but that doesn't make me an atheist. My brother who is an atheist
does not share my distrust. My brother in law is an obnoxious loudmouth
about atheism and is just as bad as my other brother in laws, one who is a
bible thumping doe-eyed methodist and another a reformationist Catholic.

You can have a dictionary definition of atheist and argue over what that is,
and also you can have actual atheists who believe differently. I'm
discussing the living examples of what an atheist might be, not a dictionary
term.

So tell me I don't know what I'm talking about if you want just because I'm
an agnostic and disagree with you, but you obviously believe you as an
atheist know enough about theists to comment on them (as in your mistrust of
them in the paragraph above), so at best this is pot/kettle/black. If you
don't want non atheists to post an opinion about atheists then don't go
around posting your opinion about theists as an atheist.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-07 04:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Thompson
On Thu, 5 May 2005 18:30:28 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
Post by Dave Thompson
Post by Dubh Ghall
As you can see, there is no faith involved.
So you have managed to drone on without addressing the point.
Congratulations.
It wasn't about atheism, it was about atheists. Atheism may not be a belief,
but atheists have beliefs. The degree to which they believe and
the importance that is placed on it determines what they are.
Another person that misses the point, about atheism. Atheism is
not a belief, it's simply a lack of belief in god/s. As to other
beliefs, each atheist has his/her own set of beliefs, or trust. I have a
deep
and abiding mistrust of religion. I consider religions to be evil
con games.
So do I, but that doesn't make me an atheist. My brother who is an
atheist does not share my distrust. My brother in law is an obnoxious
loudmouth about atheism and is just as bad as my other brother in
laws, one who is a bible thumping doe-eyed methodist and another a
reformationist Catholic.
You can have a dictionary definition of atheist and argue over what
that is, and also you can have actual atheists who believe
differently. I'm discussing the living examples of what an atheist
might be, not a dictionary term.
So tell me I don't know what I'm talking about if you want just
because I'm an agnostic and disagree with you, but you obviously
believe you as an atheist know enough about theists to comment on
them (as in your mistrust of them in the paragraph above), so at best
this is pot/kettle/black. If you don't want non atheists to post an
opinion about atheists then don't go around posting your opinion
about theists as an atheist.
Definitional arguments are often thinly vieled attempts to get
one's predjudices accepted as axioms by crafting the language
in such a way that groups of people get painted with a wide brush.
It also makes dissenting viewpoints difficult to express.
When someone tries to define atheism in such a way that one cannot
be called "atheist" without taking on additional properties that
don't apply to all atheists, it's predjudice disguised as a
language argument. It's no different than trying to define
"Genius" to be a term that means "A white man who is smart" and
then getting all incensed when people want to debate that term,
saying "but this is a pointless language debate, let's just use
the term and move on..."

In a way, language masks axioms. If you insist that your axiom
that not everyone shares be embedded in the language everyone shares,
people are going to get mad.

Thus we get mad when someone tries to claim that all atheists
are strong atheists, and we get mad when someone tries to claim
that strong atheism is a leap of faith. Neither is a mutually
accepted axiom, so they don't belong in the common language.


Just wrong. If one states god exists and that god has the following
attributes, and the attributes created contradictions, that god is failed.
Knowledge IS possible.

Thus if one claims god exists, and god is omniscient,
omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and creator of all, we can
disprove that class of gods, all claimed gods that are
asserted to have these attributes.


If god creates all and is omniscient, that god knows before
that god actually creates anything, what the exact future
of every aspect of that world will be in full detail.

That god then has a choice to create the world or chose another.
That god may fashion a world to his exact designs he chooses.

This god controls any actual world created in full detail
down to the smallest details in Planck quantum time and space.

If this world contains an evil man, god not only knows it will,
he most purposefullly created that man evil, and his evil acts
step by step and his thoughts and inclinations to the
smallest details.

There is no free will even in principle and all is created
by god exactly, totally and with full knowledge of every aspect
of this world and its contents.

Thus, all evils in this world, moral and natural are created
knowingly and purposefully by god.

Thus all evil is created by god.

But god is defined as omnibenevolent, all good,which is not
what an omniscient creator god logically gives us, a god that
is omnimalevolent, creator of all evil that existed, exists
and will exits in a world where free will is totally impossible.

So we know this god does not exist.
This is knowledge.
The theological claims do not work.
That is knowledge.

Note this takes out all gods of the class maximum gods
that are omniscient, omnibenevolent, creator of all.
Not matter any subclaims or differences, Allah vs Jehovah etc.
And all sub-sub-claims, Jesus, Mohammed et al.
And all theological claims hanging off of such mythological
claims. No god, no Moses on the mount, no laws of a
non-existant 'god'. No Jesus, no judgment day.

This is knowledge too, that once logic has shown us a claimed,
broad class of maximalist gods cannot exist, all that hangs
off such claims is false also.

This is not hard.

Knowledge is easy, even trivial if you learn to
ask the right questions.
And the broader the claims, the broader the disproof.
And when you look at it, there is something beautiful
and quite elegant to this last observation.
Spam Gangree
2005-05-05 07:46:56 UTC
Permalink
I saw Charles & Mambo Duckman <***@gfy.slf>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Charles & Mambo Duckman <***@gfy.slf> with clogs on
well I declare!
Post by Charles & Mambo Duckman
No, one could argue, and very successfully if I might add, that there is no
leap of faith in atheism whatsoever.
Just like you are not making a leap of faith when you don't believe in the
existence of Qwexxlytrw, the 345-legged invisible Moon being, no atheist is
making it either in not believing every single god myth out there.
A) Qwexxlytrw is invisible
B) We cannot see Qwexxlytrw
C) Therefore Qwexxlytrw exists.


David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208

Due to be prayed for by Gastrich 11.3.2011
wcb
2005-05-06 02:16:55 UTC
Permalink
*******************
Post by Matt Cunningham
What are you talking about? I'm agnostic... but I'm not a closet
atheist. In fact, I have no problem saying to just about anyone that,
from my experience, it seems highly possible(even likely) that there
isn't any God. But you can't *know* that, that's the issue.
Yes, you can. The definition of god is simple.
God is a personal being, he has conciousness, will,
intelligence.
He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and
creator of all. He is greater than anything that can
be imagined.

The trick is to see that this is an open ended
maximalist definition. Theists try to gain as much
claims for god this way without having to specify
every little claim for god overall.

There are lesser claims, god is Jehovah, god is Allah
and so on.

So when you look at this maximalist type god, its really not a
god, but a class of gods. If ypu can debunk this god, you debunk
all specific maximalist gods, Jehova, Allah et al. And all
lessor specific claims. That Jesus is son of god or that god spoke to
Mohammed via Gabriel.

And you can indeed do this. Claims made for god self
destruct easily enough when examined. Omnipotence and
Omnibenevolence create the problem of evil.

Theists try to claim evil is necessary for free will to avoid
this problem. But omniscience and creatorship of all utterly
destroys any possibility of free will.

So the maximalist class of gods cannot exist.
So no specific maximalist god can exist, not
sub-claims for any maximalist god.

To preserve god, the theist must step way, way down to a much,
much lessor type of god.

In fact, its almost trivial to debunk god.

Strong Atheism is up to the task and wins.

The other issue to notice is, the god of the bible is
not the god of the theologians. God in the bible for example.
lies to Adam to scare Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge
of good and evil.

This god is not om,niscient enough to see that his lie
wil not succeed very long. Dozens of little things like this
are far different from the omni-everything god which is really
a Greek idea grafted later on to the bible god by early
christian theologians.
Post by Matt Cunningham
Our
perspective is limited to such a degree that we have no evidence on the
genesis of the universe,
Baloney, we see it most certainly needs no god and contradicts al
and every creation myth you ca dig up.
Post by Matt Cunningham
hence any assumption on the existence(or
non-existence) of a God is just that, an assumption.
Which assumption fails because of its self destructive
set ofdefinitions.
Post by Matt Cunningham
If you think
differently, you're, um, wrong ;p If you can find a single shred of
*proof* that God doesn't exist, then atheism wouldn't require a leap of
faith.
OK, here it is.

******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************

1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.

2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful

3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.

4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.

5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.

6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.

7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.

8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.

9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.

10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.

11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.

12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.

13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.

14. Morally evil men and women exist.

15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.

16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.

17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.

(End)

****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************

1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.

2. God is also said to have free will.

3. God is also said to be omnipotent.

4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.

5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?

6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.

7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.

6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.

7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.

8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?

9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.

10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.

(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************

God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent

2. Omniscient

3. Omnibenevolent.

4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.

5. The creator of all.

6. Intelligent and concious, having will.

7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?

8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?

9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.

10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.

11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.

12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.

13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.

14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.

15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.

16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.

17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.

18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.

19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.

20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.

21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.

22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.

23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.

24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.

25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?

26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.

27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.

28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.

29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.

(END)

**************************************************

God Disproven - Part 2

There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.

At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.

It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.

God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.

Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.

Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.

There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.

But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.

A few quotes from the experts:

"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992

Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."

William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"

"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994

Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."

Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."

"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001

Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."

Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".


**************************************************

**********************************
God Disproven Number 3
**********************************

Romans 11:7-8
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for; but the election hath obtained it; and the
rest were blinded.
(According as it is written, God hath given them
the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not
see, ears that they should not hear) unto this
day.

Many christians claim god gave us free will,
but here we see that that in fact, god is
said to blind many to spiritual truth. So
in fact, free will means nothing to god. Here
Paul is trying to explain why Israel has rejected
Jesus as a messiah.

Thus, if god does not care about free will, and even
denies men free will by so blinding them, free will is
no longer an arguable claim if the bible is true.
If god is omnibenevolent, then he would be duty
bound to make all men believers and all men capable
of only doing moral good. If he could do so, and
does not he is not omnibenevolent.

So a benevolent god that does not care about free will
cannot exist in a world where we see unbelief and moral
evil.
*********

Most theologians in the past have agreed god has free will.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica made that quite explicit.
Yet all theologians also agree god is omnibenevolent.
That is he has free will yet can only do good, never evil.
Yet many apologists tell us man needs free will and thus
ability to do evil. This is to get god off the hook for
existance of evil.
But as god can have a good nature and free will, so can man.
That argument is no longer viable.

But if god can make man with a god like free will
and good nature incapable of never doing moral
evil and fails to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil and is evil himself.

That we live in a world where moral evil exists proves
an omnibenevolent god is nonexistant.

**********

God is said to be omnipotent.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
If yes he cannot lift such a rock and thus is
non-omnipotent. If no, he cannot create such a
rock and is non-omnipotent.
Omnipotent is a self destructing concept that cannot
exist in reality. It is literally nonsense, incoherent,
impossible.
Thus an omnipotent god is not possible.

***********

Is god omnipotent? In Judges 1:19, god
cannot deal with iron chariots.

And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive
out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had
chariots of iron.

An inventive and intelligent god would have
made the chariot wheels fall off or killed
the horses such as he killed all the cattle
of Egypt in Exodus 9:6.

If the bible is true, there is no omnipotent god.
If apologists wish to claim there is such and
omnipotent god, they have to admit the bible is
false and rather silly.

***********

God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.

In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die.

The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this lie
would not achieve its goal.

Again, if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.

***********

Is god omnibenevolent? By all claims, yes.
That is god must always do good and never evil.
But if he can never do evil, then there is
god cannot do, evil. Thus he has no free will
after all. And there is something he cannot do.
Evil. He is not omnipotent.

Thus a an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god with
free will cannot exist as claimed. Theology has
pretended to solve this problem by essentially
redefining free will and omnipotent in a very
dishonest manner and hoping nobody ever noticed.

And of course there was always the torture chamber
for those who might be honest.

************

Exodus Chapter 5

5:4
And it came to pass by the way into the inn
that the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill
him. Then Zipporah (Moses's wife see Exodus 2;21)
took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her
son and cast it at his feet, and said, surely
a bloody husband thou art to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband
thou art because of the circumcission.

This bizaare tale presents god as being unable
to kill Moses in a personal attack upon his
person bodily.

Thus if the bible is true, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. This is one tale you will not hear
preached from the local pulpits.

A god incapable of killing a solitary Israelite
in an ambush outside an inn isn't much of a god.

****************

(End)
***********************************************
God Disproven Omniscience #1
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
***********************************************

God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.

In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die."

The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this
lie would not achieve its goal.

Thus if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.

(End)
Post by Matt Cunningham
However, until you can do that(and I know you can't) you're
making a leap of faith just as in any religion.
Hard Atheism can easily show that the god of the bible
is debunked by archaeology, and logic debunks the maximalist
god of theology.


Its almost trivial.



--

When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...