Discussion:
Trying to think realistically about God's possible existence
(too old to reply)
d***@.
2013-09-23 23:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
list:

1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.

2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.

3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.

5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.

6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.

7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.

8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.

9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.

10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.

12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.

13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.

14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)

15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.

17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Smiler
2013-09-24 01:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be
part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time.
<snip bullshit>
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Or, more likely, they are mentally deranged.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Alex W
2013-09-24 09:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Or, more likely, they are mentally deranged.
They might also be drugged.
d***@.
2013-09-25 16:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be
part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time.
<snip bullshit>
By now we both know you can't even attempt to think realistically about the
possibility of God's existence, which would explain why a list of things about
that possibility seems like bullshit to you. With your goofy attempts to compare
it with leprechauns and other things like that we know don't exist, we can see
that you can't think realistically about the possibility of his non-existence
either.
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Or, more likely, they are mentally deranged.
You're claiming it's likely that everyone who has ever seen something they
consider to be spiritual is mentally deranged. That belief sounds mentally
deranged from my pov.
Witziges Rätsel
2013-09-24 12:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist.
[skip]
In such discourse, first, define "god".
d***@.
2013-09-25 16:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist.
[skip]
In such discourse, first, define "god".
The minimum imo is a being who has deliberate influence on the development of
a planet he is not native to. It could go on from there in countless possible
ways.
Les
2013-09-24 13:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
Are you sure you did not make up the list after deciding? Were you
still an adolsecent when you did, barely able to write or read 'The
dog wags its tail" or to recite you ABC's?
Post by d***@.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Score: irrelevant - 1, for 0 , against - 0
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not

Score irrelevant -2 , for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not

Score: irrelevant - 3, for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That there is no evidence (that I know of) to show that
such a creature exists adds one to the argument against.

That you present it the way you do implies that you created
this list after you made your decision this 'creator' does
exist and this is an attempted excuse for making such an irrational
decison

Score: irrelevant -3, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not

Score: irrelevant - 4, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
No the absence of a belief is not a form of beleif nor is
it a different belief

Since this does not address the question of whether there is
a god or not

Score irrelevant - 5, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not

Score: irrelevant - 6, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not

Score: irrelevant- 7 , for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not

Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 1

A different agenda to that stated above seems to be emerging here
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
A creator (first life) creating (second) life is a case of life from
existing life.

Thus regardless of whether there is a creator or not first life must
have orginated from none life. All life consists of non life.

Since life must have originated from none life the presence of a god
seems a pointless and unecessary complication.

If such a creature can emerge from non life then simple life emerging
would seem trivial in comparison

So theis ia an argument against there being a go

Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 2
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Excellent advice. I hereby disregard the rest of your post

Why did you not say this at the outset>

Final Score: irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 2, favouring
neither side - 1


<a cut above the rest>
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - Europe's top Destination 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23930147

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010
Christopher A. Lee
2013-09-24 14:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
If you're not a Christian why even give it a thought any more than
Christians think about Zeus, Odin, Krishna and the rest of them?

The stupid theists can't understand that it is their presumption, that
is only shared by their fellow believers and is just what somebody
else beliefs" to everybody else..
Post by Les
Are you sure you did not make up the list after deciding? Were you
still an adolsecent when you did, barely able to write or read 'The
dog wags its tail" or to recite you ABC's?
They usually do.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Score: irrelevant - 1, for 0 , against - 0
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Only if it's a creator-monotheist type of god - the Greek and Roman
gods weren't, and neither are the Hindu gods.

But again, if you don't already believe in one, why give it a thought?
Post by Les
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score irrelevant -2 , for - 0, against - 0
To those brainwashed to believe in one, and because their religion
makes a major issue out of it, they imagine it should be a concern for
everybody else too,

They are obsessed both with their god and with this.

Even though it is irrelevant outside their religious circles.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
And what particular kind of god it was.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 3, for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That there is no evidence (that I know of) to show that
such a creature exists adds one to the argument against.
Nor even a reason to propose one let alone a way to determine if there
is one.
Post by Les
That you present it the way you do implies that you created
this list after you made your decision this 'creator' does
exist and this is an attempted excuse for making such an irrational
decison
Score: irrelevant -3, for - 0, against - 1
He already believed in it in order to think about it that way.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score: irrelevant - 4, for - 0, against - 1
It is however a way of reducing a high proportion of god claims to
zero,
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
No the absence of a belief is not a form of beleif nor is
it a different belief
Since this does not address the question of whether there is
a god or not
Score irrelevant - 5, for - 0, against - 1
He knows this already because it has been repeatedly explained to him
every time he tells us what out POV is and gets it wrong.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score: irrelevant - 6, for - 0, against - 1
What's wrong with the moron?

Why does he imagine it is anymore important to us than any of the
gajillions of other unevidenced beliefs?

Or even Russell's tea pot orbiting Pluto?
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score: irrelevant- 7 , for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
What "faith that God does not exist" was the in-your-face liar lying
about?
Post by Les
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 1
A different agenda to that stated above seems to be emerging here
He's obsessed with a particular god he calls "God" and is too stupid
to grasp that in the real world it is just a cultural phenomenon just
like all the others.

And is also too stupid to understand that not everybody shares his
obsession with it.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
A creator (first life) creating (second) life is a case of life from
existing life.
Which just pushes abiogenesis back a level, and is much the same as
the obvious response to "God created everything". "What created God
then?".
Post by Les
Thus regardless of whether there is a creator or not first life must
have orginated from none life. All life consists of non life.
Since life must have originated from none life the presence of a god
seems a pointless and unecessary complication.
For which there is no evidence, just a belief implanted in childhood.
Post by Les
If such a creature can emerge from non life then simple life emerging
would seem trivial in comparison
So theis ia an argument against there being a go
Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 2
Try getting through the walls theistic belief has erected around their
minds to ensure they live in a fantasy world and keep out reality -
their constant misrepresentaion of the world and people outside it
reflects this.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Excellent advice. I hereby disregard the rest of your post
Why did you not say this at the outset>
Final Score: irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 2, favouring
neither side - 1
What is there to think about?

It's just somebody else's religious belief. not substantively
different from Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and hundreds of others.
Post by Les
<a cut above the rest>
d***@.
2013-09-25 16:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
If you're not a Christian why even give it a thought any more than
Christians think about Zeus, Odin, Krishna and the rest of them?
Because of 2.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The stupid theists can't understand that it is their presumption,
That what is?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
that
is only shared by their fellow believers and is just what somebody
else beliefs" to everybody else..
Post by Les
Are you sure you did not make up the list after deciding? Were you
still an adolsecent when you did, barely able to write or read 'The
dog wags its tail" or to recite you ABC's?
They usually do.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Score: irrelevant - 1, for 0 , against - 0
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Only if it's a creator-monotheist type of god - the Greek and Roman
gods weren't, and neither are the Hindu gods.
All of their gods were not creators. That's a starting line. Can you get as
"far" as the starting line with this aspect?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But again, if you don't already believe in one, why give it a thought?
A person doesn't have to "have" a belief in order to consider a possibility.
That's another starting line you apparently have never been able to get to.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score irrelevant -2 , for - 0, against - 0
To those brainwashed to believe in one, and because their religion
makes a major issue out of it, they imagine it should be a concern for
everybody else too,
You seem to be discussing it willingly from my pov. Are you being made to
discuss it against your will somehow?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They are obsessed both with their god and with this.
Even though it is irrelevant outside their religious circles.
In contrast to that, if God does exist it's relevant to all life on the
planet regardless of any religious circles. That's another starting line btw,
but you'll probably never get as "far" as that one.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
And what particular kind of god it was.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 3, for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That there is no evidence (that I know of) to show that
such a creature exists adds one to the argument against.
Nor even a reason to propose one let alone a way to determine if there
is one.
There are lots of reasons to propose one. Just because you can't appreciate
any and possibly honestly can't even comprehend any doesn't mean there are none.
It just means you can't comprehend those that there are. Not ANY of them.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
That you present it the way you do implies that you created
this list after you made your decision this 'creator' does
exist and this is an attempted excuse for making such an irrational
decison
Score: irrelevant -3, for - 0, against - 1
He already believed in it in order to think about it that way.
You can't get to the starting line with that one as you've already
demonstrated.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score: irrelevant - 4, for - 0, against - 1
It is however a way of reducing a high proportion of god claims to
zero,
It's a way of thinking more realistically than to accept the idea that those
things are actually possible.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
No the absence of a belief is not a form of beleif nor is
it a different belief
Since this does not address the question of whether there is
a god or not
Score irrelevant - 5, for - 0, against - 1
He knows this already because it has been repeatedly explained to him
every time he tells us what out POV is and gets it wrong.
Believing a being does not exist is a belief, even though a high percentage
of people amusingly appear to be ashamed of that fact. Why do you think some
people are ashamed of it?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score: irrelevant - 6, for - 0, against - 1
What's wrong with the moron?
You're showing AGAIN that you can't get to the starting line with that
particular aspect of this topic...LOL...
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why does he imagine it is anymore important to us than any of the
gajillions of other unevidenced beliefs?
Or even Russell's tea pot orbiting Pluto?
You don't know if any sort of xts travel in space or not, much less whether
or not they take tea pots, or if they've ever carried any in an orbit around
Pluto. You have no idea, and no way of finding out. That's another starting
line, btw.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score: irrelevant- 7 , for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
What "faith that God does not exist"
The faith that's required in order to be a strong atheist. That is a very
basic starting line and it's amusing that you'll probably never be able to reach
that one since it's so obvious and so easy.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
was the in-your-face liar lying
about?
Post by Les
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 1
A different agenda to that stated above seems to be emerging here
He's obsessed with a particular god he calls "God" and is too stupid
to grasp that in the real world it is just a cultural phenomenon
Are you insisting there are no beings that can be considered gods associated
with any star systems in the entire universe? Or are you only claiming that in
your thorough explorations of this particular star system you've learned for a
fact there are none associated with it?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
just
like all the others.
And is also too stupid to understand that not everybody shares his
obsession with it.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
A creator (first life) creating (second) life is a case of life from
existing life.
Which just pushes abiogenesis back a level, and is much the same as
the obvious response to "God created everything". "What created God
then?".
I can think about it, but you can't. You'll never get to that starting line
imo. How could you???
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
Thus regardless of whether there is a creator or not first life must
have orginated from none life. All life consists of non life.
Since life must have originated from none life the presence of a god
seems a pointless and unecessary complication.
For which there is no evidence,
The fact that humans existed pretty much unchanged for 190 thousand years
and then suddenly changed to develop societies and technology in the last 10
thousand is evidence to me.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
just a belief implanted in childhood.
Post by Les
If such a creature can emerge from non life then simple life emerging
would seem trivial in comparison
So theis ia an argument against there being a go
Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 2
Try getting through the walls theistic belief has erected around their
minds to ensure they live in a fantasy world and keep out reality -
Like what?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
their constant misrepresentaion of the world and people outside it
reflects this.
Which people outside the world do you think you're trying to talk about, do
you have any idea?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Excellent advice. I hereby disregard the rest of your post
Why did you not say this at the outset>
Final Score: irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 2, favouring
neither side - 1
What is there to think about?
More than you are able to, obviously. So far it seems anything to do with
the possibility that God exists is more than you can think about.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's just somebody else's religious belief. not substantively
different from Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and hundreds of others.
Strong atheism is a religious belief. There's another starting line you
might never get to. I wonder if it would change your thinking significantly if
you ever did get to that one. Or maybe to any of them.
d***@.
2013-09-25 16:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
Are you sure you did not make up the list after deciding? Were you
still an adolsecent when you did, barely able to write or read 'The
dog wags its tail" or to recite you ABC's?
Post by d***@.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Score: irrelevant - 1, for 0 , against - 0
Only if you can explain how you want people to think a god could be native
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant -2 , for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 3, for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That there is no evidence (that I know of) to show that
such a creature exists adds one to the argument against.
That you present it the way you do implies that you created
this list after you made your decision this 'creator' does
exist and this is an attempted excuse for making such an irrational
decison
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant -3, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 4, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
No the absence of a belief is not a form of beleif nor is
it a different belief
Belief that God does not exist is a belief. Why do you want to pretend it's
not, do you have any idea about that?
Post by Les
Since this does not address the question of whether there is
a god or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 5, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 6, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant- 7 , for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 1
A different agenda to that stated above seems to be emerging here
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
A creator (first life) creating (second) life is a case of life from
existing life.
Which of course is not what I was referring to.
Post by Les
Thus regardless of whether there is a creator or not first life must
have orginated from none life.
That of course is what I was referring to.
Post by Les
All life consists of non life.
Since life must have originated from none life the presence of a god
seems a pointless and unecessary complication.
You don't know if it's why things developed as they did on this planet or
any other. All you can do is guess.
Post by Les
If such a creature can emerge from non life then simple life emerging
would seem trivial in comparison
And?
Les
2013-09-25 18:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
Are you sure you did not make up the list after deciding? Were you
still an adolsecent when you did, barely able to write or read 'The
dog wags its tail" or to recite you ABC's?
Post by d***@.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Score: irrelevant - 1, for 0 , against - 0
Only if you can explain how you want people to think a god could be native
It is irrelevant to whether one exists or not.

It would only be relevant if you had some evidence of where to look
for one. Do you have such evidence?

Since i know what an elephant looks like I am in a postion to
state categorically that there are none in my garden

Whether there is a god here or not I cannot say since
have no defintion of what one is. Do you have a defintion
based on the observation of one or what you knw it to have
done?

Without such a definiton you are talking about something you know
nothing of. Hardly any basis to consider there is such a thing is
it. No wonder you are thrashing about like this coming up with
bogus reason

That you have completely failed and indicated more against there
being such a thing helps strengthen my conviction that I am
right not to believe such a thing exists

So thank for that at least
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Nope and ditto nopes apply below
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant -2 , for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 3, for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That there is no evidence (that I know of) to show that
such a creature exists adds one to the argument against.
That you present it the way you do implies that you created
this list after you made your decision this 'creator' does
exist and this is an attempted excuse for making such an irrational
decison
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Indeed it was, that is why the score aganist was +1
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant -3, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Still Nope

Partially because you do not even know whether a god has
or needs there characteristics.

You have nothing to look for without a defintion based on evidence
at this point merely shows you ingorance

(Maybe i should have made this another negative score?)
Post by d***@.
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 4, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
No the absence of a belief is not a form of beleif nor is
it a different belief
Belief that God does not exist is a belief.
Indeed it is but disbelief that god exists is is not.

(the clue is in the dis- prefix:

2. opposite or absence of
- Ecarta)

(similar to the a- which enables 'not a theist'
to be abbreviated to atheist)
Post by d***@.
Why do you want to pretend it's
not, do you have any idea about that?
I have never pretended that the belief there is no god
is not a belief
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Since this does not address the question of whether there is
a god or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
HOw does your misundertand of the meaning of the prefix 'dis-'
help you decide whether there is a god or not?
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 5, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Still nope
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 6, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant- 7 , for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 1
A different agenda to that stated above seems to be emerging here
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not
A creator (first life) creating (second) life is a case of life from
existing life.
Which of course is not what I was referring to.
I hope you are not trying to imply I am only allowed to discuss
what you discussed?
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Thus regardless of whether there is a creator or not first life must
have orginated from none life.
That of course is what I was referring to.
And i agree with you.
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
All life consists of non life.
Since life must have originated from none life the presence of a god
seems a pointless and unecessary complication.
You don't know if it's why things developed as they did on this planet or
any other. All you can do is guess.
No we do not know how first life originated all you can do is guess
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
If such a creature can emerge from non life then simple life emerging
would seem trivial in comparison
And?
The bit you snipped.

Did you not want to see a reasoned argument against its existence?

Maybe it was something you could not attempt to do?

No?

thought not :-)

but hey thanks for the post it has helped to convince me even
more that I am right not to believe there is such a creature
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - Europe's top Destination 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23930147

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010
d***@.
2013-09-27 17:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
Are you sure you did not make up the list after deciding? Were you
still an adolsecent when you did, barely able to write or read 'The
dog wags its tail" or to recite you ABC's?
Post by d***@.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Score: irrelevant - 1, for 0 , against - 0
Only if you can explain how you want people to think a god could be native
It is irrelevant to whether one exists or not.
It would only be relevant if you had some evidence of where to look
for one.
Outside of this star system imo.
Post by Les
Do you have such evidence?
Do you think he would reside within this star system?
Post by Les
Since i know what an elephant looks like I am in a postion to
state categorically that there are none in my garden
But you have no idea what God looks like nor can you check the garden to
find out if you can see him or not.
Post by Les
Whether there is a god here or not I cannot say
You could have no clue because you can't think about enough of the
possibilities in realistic ways. My guess is you can only think of one.
Post by Les
since
have no defintion of what one is. Do you have a defintion
based on the observation of one or what you knw it to have
done?
Without such a definiton you are talking about something you know
nothing of. Hardly any basis to consider there is such a thing is
it. No wonder you are thrashing about like this coming up with
bogus reason
That you have completely failed and indicated more against there
being such a thing helps strengthen my conviction that I am
right not to believe such a thing exists
Nowhere in the whole universe? You honesty have strong faith that there are
no beings anywhere in the entire universe that can be considered gods?
Post by Les
So thank for that at least
What did I say that helped you reach your conclusion?
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Nope
Meaning that you could never develope a realistic interpretation of the
whole situation but instead maybe the one possibility and probably not even
that.
Post by Les
and ditto nopes apply below
You can't do what you can't do.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant -2 , for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 3, for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That there is no evidence (that I know of) to show that
such a creature exists adds one to the argument against.
That you present it the way you do implies that you created
this list after you made your decision this 'creator' does
exist and this is an attempted excuse for making such an irrational
decison
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Indeed it was, that is why the score aganist was +1
You can't score me. You can't even think about this stuff. All you're
capable of is saying no in various ways.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant -3, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Still Nope
Partially because you do not even know whether a god has
or needs there characteristics.
You have nothing to look for without a defintion based on evidence
at this point merely shows you ingorance
(Maybe i should have made this another negative score?)
All the things on the list are part of thinking realistically about the
possibility of his existence. From my pov if you can't do it at all then you
can't do it at all, meaning in your mind anything that considers the possibility
should be disregarded any way you can do it. That's because such things work
against what you WANT TO believe. When things are presented that work against
what we want to believe cognitive dissonance kicks in, as it does whenever
you're presented with anything that thinks about the possibility realistically.
You MIGHT be able to overcome it but you would have to want to badly, and since
you don't appear to want to at all you most likely never will.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 4, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
No the absence of a belief is not a form of beleif nor is
it a different belief
Belief that God does not exist is a belief.
Indeed it is but disbelief that god exists is is not.
Disbelief can, unfortunately imo, mean having no belief or the belief that
something is untrue. If you have no belief regarding God then it's absurd imo
for you to be critical of people for considering the possibility that he exists.
Only if you have faith that he does not, would it make sense for you to do that.
Post by Les
2. opposite or absence of
- Ecarta)
(similar to the a- which enables 'not a theist'
to be abbreviated to atheist)
Post by d***@.
Why do you want to pretend it's
not, do you have any idea about that?
I have never pretended that the belief there is no god
is not a belief
That is "strong" atheism. Not having a belief is weak atheism or
agnosticism. If it's agnosticism there is weak and strong agnosticism. I'm a
weak agnostic because I believe if God does exist, he may very well have let
some people know it. A strong agnostic believes it can't be known.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Since this does not address the question of whether there is
a god or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
HOw does your misundertand of the meaning of the prefix 'dis-'
help you decide whether there is a god or not?
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 5, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Still nope
It is but of course you can't appreciate it. It's amusing that you can't
appreciate this one...but you can't appreciate any. You do believe God doesn't
exist, even if for some reason you like to think otherwise. What else would you
want to think, and WHY???
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 6, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant- 7 , for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 1
A different agenda to that stated above seems to be emerging here
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not
A creator (first life) creating (second) life is a case of life from
existing life.
Which of course is not what I was referring to.
I hope you are not trying to imply I am only allowed to discuss
what you discussed?
Many ducks do migrate.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Thus regardless of whether there is a creator or not first life must
have orginated from none life.
That of course is what I was referring to.
And i agree with you.
One thing is better than none I guess.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
All life consists of non life.
Since life must have originated from none life the presence of a god
seems a pointless and unecessary complication.
You don't know if it's why things developed as they did on this planet or
any other. All you can do is guess.
No we do not know how first life originated all you can do is guess
Not only originated but how it progressed from there.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
If such a creature can emerge from non life then simple life emerging
would seem trivial in comparison
And?
The bit you snipped.
Did you not want to see a reasoned argument against its existence?
I don't recall seeing one. I don't see it now either, meaning you don't
appear to have enough confidence in "it" to present "it" again. From my pov it
seems that maybe "it" doesn't exist.
Post by Les
Maybe it was something you could not attempt to do?
No?
thought not :-)
but hey thanks for the post it has helped to convince me even
more that I am right not to believe there is such a creature
What part(s) did that? And again, you believe there are no gods anywhere in
the entire universe, or just none associated with this planet or star system?

Also, earlier in this post it seemed that you were trying to pretend you
don't have a belief but now you're clearly revealing the fact that you do. So
why did you try to pretend you don't have a belief earlier???
Les
2013-09-27 19:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
Are you sure you did not make up the list after deciding? Were you
still an adolsecent when you did, barely able to write or read 'The
dog wags its tail" or to recite you ABC's?
Post by d***@.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Score: irrelevant - 1, for 0 , against - 0
Only if you can explain how you want people to think a god could be native
It is irrelevant to whether one exists or not.
It would only be relevant if you had some evidence of where to look
for one.
Outside of this star system imo.
Sorry not interested in worthless opinions based on ignorance
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Do you have such evidence?
Do you think he would reside within this star system?
I have no reason to believe there is one anywhere
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Since i know what an elephant looks like I am in a postion to
state categorically that there are none in my garden
But you have no idea what God looks like nor can you check the garden to
find out if you can see him or not.
You are ahead of me :-)
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Whether there is a god here or not I cannot say
You could have no clue because you can't think about enough of the
possibilities in realistic ways. My guess is you can only think of one.
Upon what grounds do I base this alleged possibility realistically?
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
since
have no defintion of what one is. Do you have a defintion
based on the observation of one or what you knw it to have
done?
Well?
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Without such a definiton you are talking about something you know
nothing of. Hardly any basis to consider there is such a thing is
it. No wonder you are thrashing about like this coming up with
bogus reason
That you have completely failed and indicated more against there
being such a thing helps strengthen my conviction that I am
right not to believe such a thing exists
Nowhere in the whole universe? You honesty have strong faith that there are
no beings anywhere in the entire universe that can be considered gods?
Nope no such faith or belief
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
So thank for that at least
What did I say that helped you reach your conclusion?
I am not repeating myself.
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Nope
Meaning that you could never develope a realistic interpretation of the
whole situation but instead maybe the one possibility and probably not even
that
Nope
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
and ditto nopes apply below
You can't do what you can't do.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant -2 , for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 3, for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That there is no evidence (that I know of) to show that
such a creature exists adds one to the argument against.
That you present it the way you do implies that you created
this list after you made your decision this 'creator' does
exist and this is an attempted excuse for making such an irrational
decison
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Indeed it was, that is why the score aganist was +1
You can't score me. You can't even think about this stuff. All you're
capable of is saying no in various ways.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant -3, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Still Nope
Partially because you do not even know whether a god has
or needs there characteristics.
You have nothing to look for without a defintion based on evidence
at this point merely shows you ingorance
(Maybe i should have made this another negative score?)
All the things on the list are part of thinking realistically about the
possibility of his existence.
So you keep saying
Post by d***@.
From my pov if you can't do it at all then you
can't do it at all, meaning in your mind anything that considers the possibility
should be disregarded any way you can do it. That's because such things work
against what you WANT TO believe. When things are presented that work against
what we want to believe cognitive dissonance kicks in, as it does whenever
you're presented with anything that thinks about the possibility realistically.
You MIGHT be able to overcome it but you would have to want to badly, and since
you don't appear to want to at all you most likely never will.
OK that is your POV
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 4, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
No the absence of a belief is not a form of beleif nor is
it a different belief
Belief that God does not exist is a belief.
Indeed it is but disbelief that god exists is is not.
Disbelief can, unfortunately imo, mean having no belief or the belief that
something is untrue.
If you have no belief regarding God then it's absurd imo
for you to be critical of people for considering the possibility that he exists.
Only if you have faith that he does not, would it make sense for you to do that.
OK that is you opinion.
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
2. opposite or absence of
- Ecarta)
(similar to the a- which enables 'not a theist'
to be abbreviated to atheist)
Post by d***@.
Why do you want to pretend it's
not, do you have any idea about that?
I have never pretended that the belief there is no god
is not a belief
That is "strong" atheism. Not having a belief is weak atheism or
agnosticism.
I know what strong and weak atheist means thank you
Post by d***@.
If it's agnosticism there is weak and strong agnosticism. I'm a
weak agnostic because I believe if God does exist, he may very well have let
some people know it. A strong agnostic believes it can't be known.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Since this does not address the question of whether there is
a god or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
HOw does your misundertand of the meaning of the prefix 'dis-'
help you decide whether there is a god or not?
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 5, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Still nope
It is but of course you can't appreciate it. It's amusing that you can't
appreciate this one...but you can't appreciate any. You do believe God doesn't
exist, even if for some reason you like to think otherwise. What else would you
want to think, and WHY???
If that is what you want to think don't let me knowing
better than you what I am get in your way will you?
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 6, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant- 7 , for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 1
A different agenda to that stated above seems to be emerging here
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not
A creator (first life) creating (second) life is a case of life from
existing life.
Which of course is not what I was referring to.
I hope you are not trying to imply I am only allowed to discuss
what you discussed?
Many ducks do migrate.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Thus regardless of whether there is a creator or not first life must
have orginated from none life.
That of course is what I was referring to.
And i agree with you.
One thing is better than none I guess.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
All life consists of non life.
Since life must have originated from none life the presence of a god
seems a pointless and unecessary complication.
You don't know if it's why things developed as they did on this planet or
any other. All you can do is guess.
No we do not know how first life originated all you can do is guess
Not only originated but how it progressed from there.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
If such a creature can emerge from non life then simple life emerging
would seem trivial in comparison
And?
The bit you snipped.
Did you not want to see a reasoned argument against its existence?
I don't recall seeing one. I don't see it now either, meaning you don't
appear to have enough confidence in "it" to present "it" again.
No worries I will not lose any sleep over it
Post by d***@.
From my pov it
seems that maybe "it" doesn't exist
Fine
Post by d***@.
Pity but you don't seem to interesting in thinking realistically
that gods do not exist
Post by Les
Maybe it was something you could not attempt to do?
No?
thought not :-)
but hey thanks for the post it has helped to convince me even
more that I am right not to believe there is such a creature
What part(s) did that? And again, you believe there are no gods anywhere in
the entire universe, or just none associated with this planet or star system?
I do not think I need go over the arguments again. Again I will not
lose any sleep over you missing it. My post was to the group anyway
not you.
Post by d***@.
Also, earlier in this post it seemed that you were trying to pretend you
don't have a belief but now you're clearly revealing the fact that you do. So
why did you try to pretend you don't have a belief earlier???
Well I am not responsible for your conclusions which are yours and
yours alone
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - Europe's top Destination 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23930147

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010
d***@.
2013-09-30 19:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
Are you sure you did not make up the list after deciding? Were you
still an adolsecent when you did, barely able to write or read 'The
dog wags its tail" or to recite you ABC's?
Post by d***@.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Score: irrelevant - 1, for 0 , against - 0
Only if you can explain how you want people to think a god could be native
It is irrelevant to whether one exists or not.
It would only be relevant if you had some evidence of where to look
for one.
Outside of this star system imo.
Sorry not interested in worthless opinions based on ignorance
It's all you have. How do you think you could find something better?
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Do you have such evidence?
Do you think he would reside within this star system?
I have no reason to believe there is one anywhere
Then this topic is way over your head. You're not above it. You ARE below
it, on the bottom in fact. If God does exist you are among the most ignorant
people on the planet. Does that make you feel good somehow?
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Since i know what an elephant looks like I am in a postion to
state categorically that there are none in my garden
But you have no idea what God looks like nor can you check the garden to
find out if you can see him or not.
You are ahead of me :-)
I may have given it more overall thought than you, but surely have given the
possibility that he does exist a lot more. You only seem able to consider the
one possibility that he does not, but that one doesn't go anywhere.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Whether there is a god here or not I cannot say
You could have no clue because you can't think about enough of the
possibilities in realistic ways. My guess is you can only think of one.
Upon what grounds do I base this alleged possibility realistically?
Any you can think of and appreciate. Any that anyone else tells you about
that you can appreciate. If you can't do it at all, then you either learn to or
don't.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
since
have no defintion of what one is. Do you have a defintion
based on the observation of one or what you knw it to have
done?
Well?
Tell me what yours is and I'll let you know if I agree.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Without such a definiton you are talking about something you know
nothing of. Hardly any basis to consider there is such a thing is
it. No wonder you are thrashing about like this coming up with
bogus reason
That you have completely failed and indicated more against there
being such a thing helps strengthen my conviction that I am
right not to believe such a thing exists
Nowhere in the whole universe? You honesty have strong faith that there are
no beings anywhere in the entire universe that can be considered gods?
Nope no
Provide your defintion of gods.
Post by Les
such faith or belief
So you believe none are associated with this star system but you feel that
some may be associated with other star systems, or that one may be or whatever.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
So thank for that at least
What did I say that helped you reach your conclusion?
I am not repeating myself.
By saying that you reveal that you're ashamed to repeat whatever it is,
probably with good reason.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Nope
Meaning that you could never develope a realistic interpretation of the
whole situation but instead maybe the one possibility and probably not even
that
Nope
Then we agree you can only consider the one possibility and can only do that
poorly. I recognised that and it's good that you do too, in case you ever want
to try to improve.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
and ditto nopes apply below
You can't do what you can't do.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant -2 , for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 3, for - 0, against - 0
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
That there is no evidence (that I know of) to show that
such a creature exists adds one to the argument against.
That you present it the way you do implies that you created
this list after you made your decision this 'creator' does
exist and this is an attempted excuse for making such an irrational
decison
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Indeed it was, that is why the score aganist was +1
You can't score me. You can't even think about this stuff. All you're
capable of is saying no in various ways.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant -3, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
Still Nope
Partially because you do not even know whether a god has
or needs there characteristics.
You have nothing to look for without a defintion based on evidence
at this point merely shows you ingorance
(Maybe i should have made this another negative score?)
All the things on the list are part of thinking realistically about the
possibility of his existence.
So you keep saying
It's not going to change. How could it?
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
From my pov if you can't do it at all then you
can't do it at all, meaning in your mind anything that considers the possibility
should be disregarded any way you can do it. That's because such things work
against what you WANT TO believe. When things are presented that work against
what we want to believe cognitive dissonance kicks in, as it does whenever
you're presented with anything that thinks about the possibility realistically.
You MIGHT be able to overcome it but you would have to want to badly, and since
you don't appear to want to at all you most likely never will.
OK that is your POV
It's part of how the human mind works. You'd have to either want to believe
gods could exist, or at least not be opposed to the idea, in order to be able to
open up enough to consider the possibility. Otherwise coginitive dissonance will
prevent you. It's a protection and we all have it. Advertisers work deliberately
trying to find ways of overcoming it, and presenting information in ways that
don't trigger it, and stuff like that. In some ways it's good and keeps people
from doing things like rape and murder, and even theft. In other ways it's not
good when people cling to beliefs even when evidence against them is presented.
You see believers as being in that position, and believers see you as being in
that position, and the truth is we're all in it. If you ever drop your faith in
nonexistence and learn to consider other possibilities, then your cd might
protect you from going back to faith in nonexistence again. You have to hold a
belief for a while before cd becomes associated with it though, I believe.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 4, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
No the absence of a belief is not a form of beleif nor is
it a different belief
Belief that God does not exist is a belief.
Indeed it is but disbelief that god exists is is not.
Disbelief can, unfortunately imo, mean having no belief or the belief that
something is untrue.
If you have no belief regarding God then it's absurd imo
for you to be critical of people for considering the possibility that he exists.
Only if you have faith that he does not, would it make sense for you to do that.
OK that is you opinion.
What other opinion do you think makes sense?
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
2. opposite or absence of
- Ecarta)
(similar to the a- which enables 'not a theist'
to be abbreviated to atheist)
Post by d***@.
Why do you want to pretend it's
not, do you have any idea about that?
I have never pretended that the belief there is no god
is not a belief
That is "strong" atheism. Not having a belief is weak atheism or
agnosticism.
I know what strong and weak atheist means thank you
Not everyone does for one thing, and people who do often need to be reminded
of it frequently. I've discussed it with lots of people who act like strong
atheists, but only have a very few of them who were not ashamed to admit their
faith that God does not exist. The very faith that REQUIRED in order to be a
strong atheist and they should be more proud of than ashamed of.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
If it's agnosticism there is weak and strong agnosticism. I'm a
weak agnostic because I believe if God does exist, he may very well have let
some people know it. A strong agnostic believes it can't be known.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Since this does not address the question of whether there is
a god or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
HOw does your misundertand of the meaning of the prefix 'dis-'
help you decide whether there is a god or not?
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 5, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Still nope
It is but of course you can't appreciate it. It's amusing that you can't
appreciate this one...but you can't appreciate any. You do believe God doesn't
exist, even if for some reason you like to think otherwise. What else would you
want to think, and WHY???
If that is what you want to think don't let me knowing
better than you what I am get in your way will you?
So far you appear to be another strong atheist who's ashamed of his faith.
That probably means your faith isn't very strong, but it is strong enough for
you to feel comfortable criticising people for considering other possibilities
besides the one your faith is in.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant - 6, for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score: irrelevant- 7 , for - 0, against - 1
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
This does not in anyway address the question of whether there is such
a creature or not
It's a part of trying to think realistically about the possibility of his
existence, which I doubt you could make an attempt to do.
Post by Les
Score irrelevant - 8, for - 0, against - 1
A different agenda to that stated above seems to be emerging here
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not
A creator (first life) creating (second) life is a case of life from
existing life.
Which of course is not what I was referring to.
I hope you are not trying to imply I am only allowed to discuss
what you discussed?
Many ducks do migrate.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Thus regardless of whether there is a creator or not first life must
have orginated from none life.
That of course is what I was referring to.
And i agree with you.
One thing is better than none I guess.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
All life consists of non life.
Since life must have originated from none life the presence of a god
seems a pointless and unecessary complication.
You don't know if it's why things developed as they did on this planet or
any other. All you can do is guess.
No we do not know how first life originated all you can do is guess
Not only originated but how it progressed from there.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
If such a creature can emerge from non life then simple life emerging
would seem trivial in comparison
And?
The bit you snipped.
Did you not want to see a reasoned argument against its existence?
I don't recall seeing one. I don't see it now either, meaning you don't
appear to have enough confidence in "it" to present "it" again.
No worries I will not lose any sleep over it
Post by d***@.
From my pov it
seems that maybe "it" doesn't exist
Fine
We agree it doesn't exist then, though I didn't lose any sleep worrying that
it might :-)
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Pity but you don't seem to interesting in thinking realistically
that gods do not exist
Post by Les
Maybe it was something you could not attempt to do?
No?
thought not :-)
but hey thanks for the post it has helped to convince me even
more that I am right not to believe there is such a creature
What part(s) did that? And again, you believe there are no gods anywhere in
the entire universe, or just none associated with this planet or star system?
I do not think I need go over the arguments again.
You should try to improve then. Why not? You have no faith in your chosen
belief, and no faith in your supposed arguments against all other possibilities,
so maybe you should try to move on to a less restricting position. What have you
got to lose?
Post by Les
Again I will not
lose any sleep over you missing it. My post was to the group anyway
not you.
You guys all seem to like to support each others' faith in the one
possibility, while I like to encourage people to move on and consider others.
Even if you don't like it you're thinking about more things than you would if
nobody encouraged you to move on, even if the things seem like bullshit from
your pov. I don't believe I've bullshitted you about anything though. It's that
cd. That's what it does pretty much...makes info you don't like seem like
bullshit.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
Also, earlier in this post it seemed that you were trying to pretend you
don't have a belief but now you're clearly revealing the fact that you do. So
why did you try to pretend you don't have a belief earlier???
Well I am not responsible for your conclusions which are yours and
yours alone
You're a strong atheist whose faith is weak, so you should really get over
that extreme position and try moving on. That's what I did. Trying to maintain
faith in the one "seems" easy, but for me it was the hardest thing yet. Just
take it as it comes seems best now, keep an open mind and take it item by item.
But if you did that I guess we'd have nothing to argue about, eh?
Les
2013-09-30 20:33:57 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by d***@.
You're a strong atheist
Nope



<snip>
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - Europe's top Destination 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23930147

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:13:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:33:57 +0100, Les <***@sharnt.tell> wrote:
.
Post by d***@.
Post by Les
Post by d***@.
earlier in this post it seemed that you were trying to pretend you
don't have a belief but now you're clearly revealing the fact that you do. So
why did you try to pretend you don't have a belief earlier???
Well I am not responsible for your conclusions which are yours and
yours alone
You're a strong atheist whose faith is weak, so you should really get over
that extreme position and try moving on. That's what I did. Trying to maintain
faith in the one "seems" easy, but for me it was the hardest thing yet. Just
take it as it comes seems best now, keep an open mind and take it item by item.
Nope
So you have decided God does not exist and closed your mind to all other
possibilities, and you're also apparently ashamed that you have. Do you think no
gods exist anywhere in the entire universe, or just that none are associated
with this star system?
MarkA
2013-09-24 16:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be
part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time.
I believe that God's favorite species lives on another planet, many light
years away. He only created us so that they would have an alien
civilization to communicate with once their technology develops to the
point of allowing interstellar travel.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
d***@.
2013-09-25 16:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be
part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time.
I believe that God's favorite species lives on another planet, many light
years away. He only created us so that they would have an alien
civilization to communicate with once their technology develops to the
point of allowing interstellar travel.
That's one of countless possibilities. I wonder if you're honestly able to
consider it as one, or if you're only pretending you can for some reason. Do you
know if you can or not? If so, is that the only one you're able to consider or
are there others?
MarkA
2013-09-26 12:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be
part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to
I believe that God's favorite species lives on another planet, many light
years away. He only created us so that they would have an alien
civilization to communicate with once their technology develops to the
point of allowing interstellar travel.
That's one of countless possibilities. I wonder if you're honestly able to
consider it as one, or if you're only pretending you can for some reason.
Do you know if you can or not? If so, is that the only one you're able to
consider or are there others?
Most people's idea of God includes the idea that humans are his "favorite"
creation. Seems a little ego-centric to me, so I came up with the
alternative given above, in which Earth and humankind are just "filler".

You can imagine any scenario you like WRT god, his existence, and his
nature. The problem is, there is nothing observable that would allow you
to pick one scenario over any other. To me, the most likely scenario is
that he doesn't exist at all. I can't prove it, but I have no reason to
think otherwise.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
d***@.
2013-09-27 17:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be
part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to
I believe that God's favorite species lives on another planet, many light
years away. He only created us so that they would have an alien
civilization to communicate with once their technology develops to the
point of allowing interstellar travel.
That's one of countless possibilities. I wonder if you're honestly able to
consider it as one, or if you're only pretending you can for some reason.
Do you know if you can or not? If so, is that the only one you're able to
consider or are there others?
Most people's idea of God includes the idea that humans are his "favorite"
creation. Seems a little ego-centric to me, so I came up with the
alternative given above, in which Earth and humankind are just "filler".
Have you not considered the possibility that a God exists but doesn't know
about this planet at all?
Post by MarkA
You can imagine any scenario you like WRT god, his existence, and his
nature. The problem is, there is nothing observable that would allow you
to pick one scenario over any other. To me, the most likely scenario is
that he doesn't exist at all. I can't prove it, but I have no reason to
think otherwise.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have too. If
humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their 200K year time on
Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone, but we did...
MarkA
2013-09-27 22:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to
be part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to
I believe that God's favorite species lives on another planet, many
light years away. He only created us so that they would have an alien
civilization to communicate with once their technology develops to the
point of allowing interstellar travel.
That's one of countless possibilities. I wonder if you're honestly able to
consider it as one, or if you're only pretending you can for some
reason. Do you know if you can or not? If so, is that the only one
you're able to consider or are there others?
Most people's idea of God includes the idea that humans are his
"favorite" creation. Seems a little ego-centric to me, so I came up with
the alternative given above, in which Earth and humankind are just
"filler".
Have you not considered the possibility that a God exists but doesn't know
about this planet at all?
Such a god would lack the quality of omniscience, and Earth wouldn't be
an intentional part of its creation. People who like gods don't like gods
like that.
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
You can imagine any scenario you like WRT god, his existence, and his
nature. The problem is, there is nothing observable that would allow
you to pick one scenario over any other. To me, the most likely
scenario is that he doesn't exist at all. I can't prove it, but I have
no reason to think otherwise.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have too.
If humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their 200K year
time on Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone, but we did...
One of the most common misconceptions about unlikely events is that you
can be astounded that an unlikely event occurred, and forget that unlikely
events happen all the time. Shuffle a deck of cards. Shuffle them
really, really well. Whatever order they wind up in had a 1 in 10^47
probability of occurring! However, the odds that they would wind up in
ONE of the 10^47 possible combinations is 100%.

Here's another good example: a few years ago, I hit a deer with my car.
Cars are common, deer are common (in my area), so hitting a deer is
nothing remarkable. The insurance adjuster told me that the average is
one deer strike every 7 years per driver. However, consider the
long chain of hugely improbable events that had to occur for me to be in
that exact place in that car at the same time that deer ran onto that
road! If I had left home just 10 seconds sooner or later, we would have
missed each other. If I had been driving 1 mph faster or slower after
leaving home, we would have missed each other. If that deer had
turned in another direction as it was walking along, a week before the
accident, we would have missed each other. When you look at it that way,
it is astounding that anyone EVER hits a deer, eh?
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Brown Sugar
2013-09-28 07:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the
possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to
be part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to
I believe that God's favorite species lives on another planet, many
light years away. He only created us so that they would have an alien
civilization to communicate with once their technology develops to the
point of allowing interstellar travel.
That's one of countless possibilities. I wonder if you're honestly able to
consider it as one, or if you're only pretending you can for some
reason. Do you know if you can or not? If so, is that the only one
you're able to consider or are there others?
Most people's idea of God includes the idea that humans are his
"favorite" creation. Seems a little ego-centric to me, so I came up with
the alternative given above, in which Earth and humankind are just
"filler".
Have you not considered the possibility that a God exists but doesn't know
about this planet at all?
Such a god would lack the quality of omniscience, and Earth wouldn't be
an intentional part of its creation. People who like gods don't like gods
like that.
Technically not true. Evolution is a god like that. It's not aware but
it has the apprarent power of the creation and destruction of entire
species'.
To be honest should any sentient god exist then I would find that the
life on this and other worlds being a side effect as more beleivable
than a bearded old man who claims to love us but casts us down to a
place where we are tortured for all time, for the slightest of reasons.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
You can imagine any scenario you like WRT god, his existence, and his
nature. The problem is, there is nothing observable that would allow
you to pick one scenario over any other. To me, the most likely
scenario is that he doesn't exist at all. I can't prove it, but I have
no reason to think otherwise.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have too.
If humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their 200K year
time on Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone, but we did...
One of the most common misconceptions about unlikely events is that you
can be astounded that an unlikely event occurred, and forget that unlikely
events happen all the time. Shuffle a deck of cards. Shuffle them
really, really well. Whatever order they wind up in had a 1 in 10^47
probability of occurring! However, the odds that they would wind up in
ONE of the 10^47 possible combinations is 100%.
Here's another good example: a few years ago, I hit a deer with my car.
Cars are common, deer are common (in my area), so hitting a deer is
nothing remarkable. The insurance adjuster told me that the average is
one deer strike every 7 years per driver. However, consider the
long chain of hugely improbable events that had to occur for me to be in
that exact place in that car at the same time that deer ran onto that
road! If I had left home just 10 seconds sooner or later, we would have
missed each other. If I had been driving 1 mph faster or slower after
leaving home, we would have missed each other. If that deer had
turned in another direction as it was walking along, a week before the
accident, we would have missed each other. When you look at it that way,
it is astounding that anyone EVER hits a deer, eh?
--
J
Dakota
2013-09-28 08:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the
possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I
consider to
be part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to
I believe that God's favorite species lives on another planet, many
light years away. He only created us so that they would have an alien
civilization to communicate with once their technology develops to the
point of allowing interstellar travel.
That's one of countless possibilities. I wonder if you're
honestly
able to
consider it as one, or if you're only pretending you can for some
reason. Do you know if you can or not? If so, is that the only one
you're able to consider or are there others?
Most people's idea of God includes the idea that humans are his
"favorite" creation. Seems a little ego-centric to me, so I came up with
the alternative given above, in which Earth and humankind are just
"filler".
Have you not considered the possibility that a God exists but
doesn't
know
about this planet at all?
Such a god would lack the quality of omniscience, and Earth wouldn't be
an intentional part of its creation. People who like gods don't like gods
like that.
Technically not true. Evolution is a god like that. It's not aware but
it has the apprarent power of the creation and destruction of entire
species'.
To be honest should any sentient god exist then I would find that the
life on this and other worlds being a side effect as more beleivable
than a bearded old man who claims to love us but casts us down to a
place where we are tortured for all time, for the slightest of reasons.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
You can imagine any scenario you like WRT god, his existence, and his
nature. The problem is, there is nothing observable that would allow
you to pick one scenario over any other. To me, the most likely
scenario is that he doesn't exist at all. I can't prove it, but I have
no reason to think otherwise.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have too.
If humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their 200K year
time on Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone, but we did...
One of the most common misconceptions about unlikely events is that you
can be astounded that an unlikely event occurred, and forget that unlikely
events happen all the time. Shuffle a deck of cards. Shuffle them
really, really well. Whatever order they wind up in had a 1 in 10^47
probability of occurring! However, the odds that they would wind up in
ONE of the 10^47 possible combinations is 100%.
Here's another good example: a few years ago, I hit a deer with my car.
Cars are common, deer are common (in my area), so hitting a deer is
nothing remarkable. The insurance adjuster told me that the average is
one deer strike every 7 years per driver. However, consider the
long chain of hugely improbable events that had to occur for me to be in
that exact place in that car at the same time that deer ran onto that
road! If I had left home just 10 seconds sooner or later, we would have
missed each other. If I had been driving 1 mph faster or slower after
leaving home, we would have missed each other. If that deer had
turned in another direction as it was walking along, a week before the
accident, we would have missed each other. When you look at it that way,
it is astounding that anyone EVER hits a deer, eh?
One deer strike every seven years per driver seems high. Was the
insurance adjuster talking about a particular region?
MarkA
2013-10-01 13:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the
possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to
be part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to
I believe that God's favorite species lives on another planet, many
light years away. He only created us so that they would have an alien
civilization to communicate with once their technology develops to the
point of allowing interstellar travel.
That's one of countless possibilities. I wonder if you're
honestly
able to
consider it as one, or if you're only pretending you can for some
reason. Do you know if you can or not? If so, is that the only one
you're able to consider or are there others?
Most people's idea of God includes the idea that humans are his
"favorite" creation. Seems a little ego-centric to me, so I came up with
the alternative given above, in which Earth and humankind are just
"filler".
Have you not considered the possibility that a God exists but
doesn't
know
about this planet at all?
Such a god would lack the quality of omniscience, and Earth wouldn't be
an intentional part of its creation. People who like gods don't like gods
like that.
Technically not true. Evolution is a god like that. It's not aware but
it has the apprarent power of the creation and destruction of entire
species'.
To be honest should any sentient god exist then I would find that the
life on this and other worlds being a side effect as more beleivable
than a bearded old man who claims to love us but casts us down to a
place where we are tortured for all time, for the slightest of reasons.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
You can imagine any scenario you like WRT god, his existence, and his
nature. The problem is, there is nothing observable that would allow
you to pick one scenario over any other. To me, the most likely
scenario is that he doesn't exist at all. I can't prove it, but I have
no reason to think otherwise.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have too.
If humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their 200K year
time on Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone, but we did...
One of the most common misconceptions about unlikely events is that you
can be astounded that an unlikely event occurred, and forget that unlikely
events happen all the time. Shuffle a deck of cards. Shuffle them
really, really well. Whatever order they wind up in had a 1 in 10^47
probability of occurring! However, the odds that they would wind up in
ONE of the 10^47 possible combinations is 100%.
Here's another good example: a few years ago, I hit a deer with my car.
Cars are common, deer are common (in my area), so hitting a deer is
nothing remarkable. The insurance adjuster told me that the average is
one deer strike every 7 years per driver. However, consider the long
chain of hugely improbable events that had to occur for me to be in
that exact place in that car at the same time that deer ran onto that
road! If I had left home just 10 seconds sooner or later, we would have
missed each other. If I had been driving 1 mph faster or slower after
leaving home, we would have missed each other. If that deer had turned
in another direction as it was walking along, a week before the
accident, we would have missed each other. When you look at it that way,
it is astounding that anyone EVER hits a deer, eh?
One deer strike every seven years per driver seems high. Was the insurance
adjuster talking about a particular region?
Upstate New York. In neighboring PA, school children have off the first
day of deer season. I don't think it's because they think it should be a
holiday, but just that only a handful of kids come to school that day,
anyway. The white tail deer is the deadliest animal in the USA,
accounting for the vast majority of human deaths resulting from
human-animal interaction.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
d***@.
2013-09-30 19:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the
possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to
be part of making such an attempt and like to present it from time to
I believe that God's favorite species lives on another planet, many
light years away. He only created us so that they would have an alien
civilization to communicate with once their technology develops to the
point of allowing interstellar travel.
That's one of countless possibilities. I wonder if you're honestly able to
consider it as one, or if you're only pretending you can for some
reason. Do you know if you can or not? If so, is that the only one
you're able to consider or are there others?
Most people's idea of God includes the idea that humans are his
"favorite" creation. Seems a little ego-centric to me, so I came up with
the alternative given above, in which Earth and humankind are just
"filler".
Have you not considered the possibility that a God exists but doesn't know
about this planet at all?
Such a god would lack the quality of omniscience,
I believe true omniscience and omnipotence are not possibe, and therefore
are exagerations when applied to anything.
Post by MarkA
and Earth wouldn't be
an intentional part of its creation. People who like gods don't like gods
like that.
It's another possibility like your idea that it's his second favorite. It
could be thought of more as a prison planet or/and a test planet. To many people
poor desert villages in Africa are home, but if you or I got dropped in one we'd
feel trapped and would concentrate all our efforts on getting back to an
environment we're more comfortable in. This planet could very well seem like
that to the majority of intelligent beings in the universe. We don't know.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by MarkA
You can imagine any scenario you like WRT god, his existence, and his
nature. The problem is, there is nothing observable that would allow
you to pick one scenario over any other. To me, the most likely
scenario is that he doesn't exist at all. I can't prove it, but I have
no reason to think otherwise.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have too.
If humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their 200K year
time on Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone, but we did...
One of the most common misconceptions about unlikely events is that you
can be astounded that an unlikely event occurred, and forget that unlikely
events happen all the time. Shuffle a deck of cards. Shuffle them
really, really well. Whatever order they wind up in had a 1 in 10^47
probability of occurring! However, the odds that they would wind up in
ONE of the 10^47 possible combinations is 100%.
Here's another good example: a few years ago, I hit a deer with my car.
Cars are common, deer are common (in my area), so hitting a deer is
nothing remarkable. The insurance adjuster told me that the average is
one deer strike every 7 years per driver. However, consider the
long chain of hugely improbable events that had to occur for me to be in
that exact place in that car at the same time that deer ran onto that
road! If I had left home just 10 seconds sooner or later, we would have
missed each other. If I had been driving 1 mph faster or slower after
leaving home, we would have missed each other. If that deer had
turned in another direction as it was walking along, a week before the
accident, we would have missed each other. When you look at it that way,
it is astounding that anyone EVER hits a deer, eh?
Yes. But sometimes things like that start happening in ways that make it
seem like more than random too. One of the things in daily life that make it
seem like things are sometimes being influenced IS the timing. Sometimes it
seems like clear evidence even though we can never know that it is. I will say
that if things in your life have not been enough to encourage you to suspect
there might really be influence from whatever else, you truly are a fortunate
person indeed. I mentioned that to a strong atheist I knew once. He believed God
does not exist and I told him he might be one of the most blessed type people on
the planet. That he might live his whole life not even thinking about that topic
much less having it on his mind pretty much all the time, and then at the end
"find" God or whatever and still get to go to heaven if it exists. That man did
die suddenly of a heart attack a year or so after that, and I was told by
someone that he came to believe in God at some point which if so must have been
very shortly before his death.
Christopher A. Lee
2013-10-01 13:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have too.
If humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their 200K year
time on Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone, but we did...
Arguments from personal ignorance and incredulity.
Post by MarkA
One of the most common misconceptions about unlikely events is that you
can be astounded that an unlikely event occurred, and forget that unlikely
events happen all the time. Shuffle a deck of cards. Shuffle them
really, really well. Whatever order they wind up in had a 1 in 10^47
probability of occurring! However, the odds that they would wind up in
ONE of the 10^47 possible combinations is 100%.
Here's another good example: a few years ago, I hit a deer with my car.
Cars are common, deer are common (in my area), so hitting a deer is
nothing remarkable. The insurance adjuster told me that the average is
one deer strike every 7 years per driver. However, consider the
long chain of hugely improbable events that had to occur for me to be in
that exact place in that car at the same time that deer ran onto that
road! If I had left home just 10 seconds sooner or later, we would have
missed each other. If I had been driving 1 mph faster or slower after
leaving home, we would have missed each other. If that deer had
turned in another direction as it was walking along, a week before the
accident, we would have missed each other. When you look at it that way,
it is astounding that anyone EVER hits a deer, eh?
People who use this argument should watch one of James Burke's series
like "Connections", "The Day The Universe Changed", etc.
MarkA
2013-10-01 21:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have
too. If humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their
200K year time on Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone,
but we did...
Arguments from personal ignorance and incredulity.
Post by MarkA
One of the most common misconceptions about unlikely events is that you
can be astounded that an unlikely event occurred, and forget that
unlikely events happen all the time. Shuffle a deck of cards. Shuffle
them really, really well. Whatever order they wind up in had a 1 in
10^47 probability of occurring! However, the odds that they would wind
up in ONE of the 10^47 possible combinations is 100%.
Here's another good example: a few years ago, I hit a deer with my car.
Cars are common, deer are common (in my area), so hitting a deer is
nothing remarkable. The insurance adjuster told me that the average is
one deer strike every 7 years per driver. However, consider the long
chain of hugely improbable events that had to occur for me to be in that
exact place in that car at the same time that deer ran onto that road! If
I had left home just 10 seconds sooner or later, we would have missed
each other. If I had been driving 1 mph faster or slower after leaving
home, we would have missed each other. If that deer had turned in
another direction as it was walking along, a week before the accident, we
would have missed each other. When you look at it that way, it is
astounding that anyone EVER hits a deer, eh?
People who use this argument should watch one of James Burke's series like
"Connections", "The Day The Universe Changed", etc.
I loved that series.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Christopher A. Lee
2013-10-01 21:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have
too. If humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their
200K year time on Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone,
but we did...
Arguments from personal ignorance and incredulity.
Post by MarkA
One of the most common misconceptions about unlikely events is that you
can be astounded that an unlikely event occurred, and forget that
unlikely events happen all the time. Shuffle a deck of cards. Shuffle
them really, really well. Whatever order they wind up in had a 1 in
10^47 probability of occurring! However, the odds that they would wind
up in ONE of the 10^47 possible combinations is 100%.
Here's another good example: a few years ago, I hit a deer with my car.
Cars are common, deer are common (in my area), so hitting a deer is
nothing remarkable. The insurance adjuster told me that the average is
one deer strike every 7 years per driver. However, consider the long
chain of hugely improbable events that had to occur for me to be in that
exact place in that car at the same time that deer ran onto that road! If
I had left home just 10 seconds sooner or later, we would have missed
each other. If I had been driving 1 mph faster or slower after leaving
home, we would have missed each other. If that deer had turned in
another direction as it was walking along, a week before the accident, we
would have missed each other. When you look at it that way, it is
astounding that anyone EVER hits a deer, eh?
People who use this argument should watch one of James Burke's series like
"Connections", "The Day The Universe Changed", etc.
I loved that series.
You can find them on youtube.
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:15:57 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 06:48:40 -0700, Christopher A. Lee <***@optonline.net>
wrote:
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
To me it seems this planet could very well have had help in developing the
way that it did, and this species we're part of seems it could have too.
If humans hadn't changed so extremely in the last 10K of their 200K year
time on Earth it probably wouldn't seem that way to anyone, but we did...
Arguments from personal ignorance and incredulity.
Humans changed very quickly, whether they had help doing so or not. That's a
starting line. You can't get as "far" as the starting line with that one.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by MarkA
One of the most common misconceptions about unlikely events is that you
can be astounded that an unlikely event occurred, and forget that unlikely
events happen all the time. Shuffle a deck of cards. Shuffle them
really, really well. Whatever order they wind up in had a 1 in 10^47
probability of occurring! However, the odds that they would wind up in
ONE of the 10^47 possible combinations is 100%.
Here's another good example: a few years ago, I hit a deer with my car.
Cars are common, deer are common (in my area), so hitting a deer is
nothing remarkable. The insurance adjuster told me that the average is
one deer strike every 7 years per driver. However, consider the
long chain of hugely improbable events that had to occur for me to be in
that exact place in that car at the same time that deer ran onto that
road! If I had left home just 10 seconds sooner or later, we would have
missed each other. If I had been driving 1 mph faster or slower after
leaving home, we would have missed each other. If that deer had
turned in another direction as it was walking along, a week before the
accident, we would have missed each other. When you look at it that way,
it is astounding that anyone EVER hits a deer, eh?
People who use this argument should watch one of James Burke's series
like "Connections", "The Day The Universe Changed", etc.
Does it explain how even though we have no examples of one species giving
birth to a different species, it still just happened to happen millions of times
in the past but not any more?
Smiler
2013-09-24 22:52:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:56:08 -0400, dh wrote:


<snip>
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves
impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular
characteristics to God if he exists.
That, therefore, makes this supposed god character no more powerful and
all-knowing than a human being. Not much of a god, is it? But it does
provide another data point that shows that all gods are constructs of
human minds.

What's your opinion on omnibenevolence and onmipresence?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
d***@.
2013-09-25 16:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
<snip>
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves
impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular
characteristics to God if he exists.
That, therefore, makes this supposed god character no more powerful and
all-knowing than a human being.
It does not. In fact it so obviously does not it's hard to believe even you
could believe it, though you have shown that you believe some absurd things.
Post by Smiler
Not much of a god, is it?
It certainly could be an awesomely powerful god compared to all humans
combined and still not be omnipotent. And it could certainly know a LOT more
than all humans combined and still not be omniscient. Were you somehow unaware
of facts like those??? Children of today know more than the most knowledgeable
of people did years ago. We can't even imagine how much more a being like God
could know than we do.
Post by Smiler
But it does
provide another data point that shows that all gods are constructs of
human minds.
Again no it doesn't. It's just more examples of different beliefs that
people have, and the beliefs people have don't determine the realities about God
if he exists.
Post by Smiler
What's your opinion on omnibenevolence and onmipresence?
Probably neither of those apply either, though I certainly hope he would
work towards our better interests rather than against us, and when the time
comes he'll be understanding and forgiving of the mistakes we've made and
whatever he might feel we've done against him. Of course what we hope doesn't
mean shit, but we can still hope. Well...some of us can...
Smiler
2013-09-25 23:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
<snip>
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves
impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular
characteristics to God if he exists.
That, therefore, makes this supposed god character no more powerful and
all-knowing than a human being.
It does not. In fact it so obviously does not it's hard to believe even you
could believe it, though you have shown that you believe some absurd things.
Not half as absurd as believing a god exists.
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
Not much of a god, is it?
It certainly could be an awesomely powerful god compared to all humans
combined and still not be omnipotent. And it could certainly know a LOT
more than all humans combined and still not be omniscient. Were you
somehow unaware of facts like those??? Children of today know more than
the most knowledgeable of people did years ago. We can't even imagine how
much more a being like God could know than we do.
Without any evidence for such a being, why even speculate its properties?
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
But it does
provide another data point that shows that all gods are constructs of
human minds.
Again no it doesn't. It's just more examples of different beliefs that
people have, and the beliefs people have don't determine the realities
about God if he exists.
Those are not beliefs I share, but thanks for admitting that beliefs are
not evidence.
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
What's your opinion on omnibenevolence and onmipresence?
Probably neither of those apply either,
Your supposed god character gets weaker by the day.
Post by d***@.
though I certainly hope he would
work towards our better interests rather than against us, and when the
time comes he'll be understanding and forgiving of the mistakes we've
made and whatever he might feel we've done against him. Of course what
we hope doesn't mean shit, but we can still hope. Well...some of us can...
Your hope is not evidence.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Jeanne Douglas
2013-09-26 07:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
<snip>
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves
impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular
characteristics to God if he exists.
That, therefore, makes this supposed god character no more powerful and
all-knowing than a human being.
It does not. In fact it so obviously does not it's hard to believe even you
could believe it, though you have shown that you believe some absurd things.
Not half as absurd as believing a god exists.
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
Not much of a god, is it?
It certainly could be an awesomely powerful god compared to all humans
combined and still not be omnipotent. And it could certainly know a LOT
more than all humans combined and still not be omniscient. Were you
somehow unaware of facts like those??? Children of today know more than
the most knowledgeable of people did years ago. We can't even imagine how
much more a being like God could know than we do.
Without any evidence for such a being, why even speculate its properties?
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
But it does
provide another data point that shows that all gods are constructs of
human minds.
Again no it doesn't. It's just more examples of different beliefs that
people have, and the beliefs people have don't determine the realities
about God if he exists.
Those are not beliefs I share, but thanks for admitting that beliefs are
not evidence.
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
What's your opinion on omnibenevolence and onmipresence?
Probably neither of those apply either,
Your supposed god character gets weaker by the day.
Post by d***@.
though I certainly hope he would
work towards our better interests rather than against us, and when the
time comes he'll be understanding and forgiving of the mistakes we've
made and whatever he might feel we've done against him. Of course what
we hope doesn't mean shit, but we can still hope. Well...some of us can...
Your hope is not evidence.
No. What it is is the worst case of Stockholm Syndrome ever.
--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Les
2013-09-26 10:11:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:57:35 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
<snip>
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves
impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular
characteristics to God if he exists.
That, therefore, makes this supposed god character no more powerful and
all-knowing than a human being.
It does not. In fact it so obviously does not it's hard to believe even you
could believe it, though you have shown that you believe some absurd things.
Not half as absurd as believing a god exists.
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
Not much of a god, is it?
It certainly could be an awesomely powerful god compared to all humans
combined and still not be omnipotent. And it could certainly know a LOT
more than all humans combined and still not be omniscient. Were you
somehow unaware of facts like those??? Children of today know more than
the most knowledgeable of people did years ago. We can't even imagine how
much more a being like God could know than we do.
Without any evidence for such a being, why even speculate its properties?
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
But it does
provide another data point that shows that all gods are constructs of
human minds.
Again no it doesn't. It's just more examples of different beliefs that
people have, and the beliefs people have don't determine the realities
about God if he exists.
Those are not beliefs I share, but thanks for admitting that beliefs are
not evidence.
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
What's your opinion on omnibenevolence and onmipresence?
Probably neither of those apply either,
Your supposed god character gets weaker by the day.
And that is the inevitable result of trying to think REALISTICALLY
about their wannahve gods.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
though I certainly hope he would
work towards our better interests rather than against us, and when the
time comes he'll be understanding and forgiving of the mistakes we've
made and whatever he might feel we've done against him. Of course what
we hope doesn't mean shit, but we can still hope. Well...some of us can...
Your hope is not evidence.
No. What it is is the worst case of Stockholm Syndrome ever.
LOL
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - Europe's top Destination 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23930147

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010
Alex W
2013-09-26 10:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
<snip>
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves
impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular
characteristics to God if he exists.
That, therefore, makes this supposed god character no more powerful and
all-knowing than a human being.
It does not. In fact it so obviously does not it's hard to believe even you
could believe it, though you have shown that you believe some absurd things.
Not half as absurd as believing a god exists.
If it were only absurd, Id have no problem with it.
Absurdity is interesting, stimulating, productive, creative.

ONly when such absurd notions feed directly into actions
does it become harmful.
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
Not much of a god, is it?
It certainly could be an awesomely powerful god compared to all humans
combined and still not be omnipotent. And it could certainly know a LOT
more than all humans combined and still not be omniscient. Were you
somehow unaware of facts like those??? Children of today know more than
the most knowledgeable of people did years ago. We can't even imagine how
much more a being like God could know than we do.
Without any evidence for such a being, why even speculate its properties?
Know thy enemy?

Given that a majority of humanity still subscribes to such
theistry, it is not without merit to think carefully and
clearly upon what our fellow citizens actually believe in.
It helps to predict their thoughts, decisions and behaviour.
It alsl makes it easier to debate them -- especially as many
of them never bothered to think about this in any coherent
form themselves.
d***@.
2013-09-27 17:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
<snip>
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves
impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular
characteristics to God if he exists.
That, therefore, makes this supposed god character no more powerful and
all-knowing than a human being.
It does not. In fact it so obviously does not it's hard to believe even you
could believe it, though you have shown that you believe some absurd things.
Not half as absurd as believing a god exists.
If it were only absurd, Id have no problem with it.
Absurdity is interesting, stimulating, productive, creative.
Not always. From my pov it's absurd to put your faith in the one possibility
that God does not exist, but there's nothing interesting, stimulating,
productive or creative about that. In contrast to that one dead end possibility,
the possibility that God does exist takes off in countless ways and
directions....
Post by Alex W
ONly when such absurd notions feed directly into actions
does it become harmful.
Or helpful, but you don't want to think about all the people who are helped
and fed, and all the lives that are saved, by organizations that are based on a
belief in God.
Post by Alex W
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
Not much of a god, is it?
It certainly could be an awesomely powerful god compared to all humans
combined and still not be omnipotent. And it could certainly know a LOT
more than all humans combined and still not be omniscient. Were you
somehow unaware of facts like those??? Children of today know more than
the most knowledgeable of people did years ago. We can't even imagine how
much more a being like God could know than we do.
Without any evidence for such a being, why even speculate its properties?
Know thy enemy?
You think if God does exist he's the enemy?
Post by Alex W
Given that a majority of humanity still subscribes to such
theistry, it is not without merit to think carefully and
clearly upon what our fellow citizens actually believe in.
It helps to predict their thoughts, decisions and behaviour.
It's amusing that you believe all people who consider the possibility of a
God's existence, think and behave the same way.
Post by Alex W
It alsl makes it easier to debate them -- especially as many
of them never bothered to think about this in any coherent
form themselves.
Of course a person who is convinced that God does not exist isn't capable of
thinking realistically about the possibility that he does. I feel sure you like
to think that you could, but here's a clue that should let you know that you
can't:

If you could you would. It's because you can't that you don't.
d***@.
2013-09-27 17:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
<snip>
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves
impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular
characteristics to God if he exists.
That, therefore, makes this supposed god character no more powerful and
all-knowing than a human being.
It does not. In fact it so obviously does not it's hard to believe even you
could believe it, though you have shown that you believe some absurd things.
Not half as absurd as believing a god exists.
The very absurdity of yours that we're discussing is more absurd than that,
by far. Here's another one of your absurdities that's more absurd than that:

"One species giving birth to a different one would disprove evolution."
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
Not much of a god, is it?
It certainly could be an awesomely powerful god compared to all humans
combined and still not be omnipotent. And it could certainly know a LOT
more than all humans combined and still not be omniscient. Were you
somehow unaware of facts like those??? Children of today know more than
the most knowledgeable of people did years ago. We can't even imagine how
much more a being like God could know than we do.
Without any evidence for such a being, why even speculate its properties?
"Is he the same being as all the other supposed gods?" - Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
But it does
provide another data point that shows that all gods are constructs of
human minds.
Again no it doesn't. It's just more examples of different beliefs that
people have, and the beliefs people have don't determine the realities
about God if he exists.
Those are not beliefs I share, but thanks for admitting that beliefs are
not evidence.
I pointed out that you believing God does not exist can't make him stop
existing if he does.
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
What's your opinion on omnibenevolence and onmipresence?
Probably neither of those apply either,
Your supposed god character gets weaker by the day.
Your beliefs about my beliefs are all that's changing. It's amusing you
couldn't figure that out for yourself either.
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
though I certainly hope he would
work towards our better interests rather than against us, and when the
time comes he'll be understanding and forgiving of the mistakes we've
made and whatever he might feel we've done against him. Of course what
we hope doesn't mean shit, but we can still hope. Well...some of us can...
Your hope is not evidence.
Neither is yours. Your inability to think realistically about God's possible
existence isn't evidence that he doesn't exist either. That particular
limitation is restricted to the area between your ears, and between the ears of
other people who are like you in that regard.
Brown Sugar
2013-09-26 12:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
--
J
d***@.
2013-09-27 17:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
Brown Sugar
2013-09-28 07:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
We've not heard from you in a while. I always enjoyed your brand of
trolling. It was so much more imaginative than the run of the mill troll.
--
J
d***@.
2013-09-30 19:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
We've not heard from you in a while. I always enjoyed your brand of
trolling. It was so much more imaginative than the run of the mill troll.
Thanks. Do you agree with everything on the list, as you should?
Brown Sugar
2013-09-30 20:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Alien what?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Assuming it was just one?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
Sort of. I think the supernatural is just science we haven't discovered yet.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Would it? How so?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
That sounds reasonable.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
I know what you're getting at but I would say "any god or gods" rather
than a specific one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
I can see that. I have noticed that with most religionsm the diety is
incidental.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
Yes I agree with that one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Yes
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
Yes
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Not really. That's fascism. People will beleive what they beleive
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
You can't really stop them
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
Not really. Dependancy on technology is a weakness and weakness impedes
godleyness.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
Depends what we are in relation to it. A thought maybem a creation. I
cannot put a specific answer to that question.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
Not really. perhaps it doesn't care. Perhaps it made us then moved on.
Perhaps we are a side effect and it knows nothing of our existance.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
It certainly looks that way.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
A reasonable conclusion.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
We've not heard from you in a while. I always enjoyed your brand of
trolling. It was so much more imaginative than the run of the mill troll.
Thanks. Do you agree with everything on the list, as you should?
I'll take a look.
--
J
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:13:15 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:36:11 +0100, Brown Sugar <***@softbrownsugar.net>
wrote:
.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Alien what?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Assuming it was just one?
Not really. One being in command of the project is how I think of it, with
billions of beings involved. It could be a corporate or governmental sort of
situation too, but if there was contact with humans years ago it seems they were
encouraged to believe one being has control overall, so why not lean toward
that?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
Sort of. I think the supernatural is just science we haven't discovered yet.
That's the same idea.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Would it? How so?
We wouldn't be having this discussion for one thing. There would be no
atheists for another. Lots more praying would be done, much of it by people who
have never prayed. Can you really not comprehend that everything would be
different if we had proof of God's existence? Just KNOWING would make things
hugely different without even considering what else might be different because
of HOW God made himself known, if he were to do so.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
That sounds reasonable.
It sure does but I have noticed, and you might also, that that's one of the
things some people are opposed to taking into consideration. Some atheists want
to cling to any unlikely characteristic they can try to impose on God, because
it makes it that much easier in their attempts to believe he doesn't exist,
which you've already seen that some of them are amusingly ashamed of.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
I know what you're getting at but I would say "any god or gods" rather
than a specific one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
I can see that. I have noticed that with most religionsm the diety is
incidental.
Contrary to what some of the clueless clowns around here would like people
to believe, there are a few strong atheists who are not ashamed of it and those
are the people I've most noticed can't comprehend considering both
possibilities. I've been told by such people that I do believe, and also that I
don't believe, but I don't recall any of them ever accepting the fact that I
don't have a true belief.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
Yes I agree with that one.
It seems strange to me, but a lot of people don't try to think open
mindedly. They seem to try to keep it simple and over simplify...or maybe they
really make it more complicated BY trying to keep it more simple than it is. The
Koran says:

[al-Baqarah 2:62] Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed
unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians,
and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and
doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

[al-`Ankabut 29:46]
And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do
wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him
we surrender.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Yes
I'm glad the clueless ones haven't fooled you into not being aware of that.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
Yes
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Not really. That's fascism. People will beleive what they beleive
The point is we shouldn't let it contaminate our own way of thinking. If it
can add something then we got lucky but a lot of things people try to get us to
believe don't help at all with trying to think realistically, and that includes
both believers and disbelievers.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
You can't really stop them
Sure you can. When someone tries to compare God to a rockinghorse orbiting
Saturn or whatever you can consider the possibility that there could be xts that
have rockinghorses aboard their vessils and that some of them have orbitted
Saturn. When someone calls God a sky pixie you can think how stupid it is since
the idea of God residing ON this planet is absurd, so trying to make fun of him
being in the "sky" is retarded. Stuff like that...
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
Not really. Dependancy on technology is a weakness and weakness impedes
godleyness.
No it doesn't. That's not thinking realistically. That's the opposite of
thinking realistically in fact, otherwise the world would be ruled by naked
humans with no tools or weapons. You should try to learn to appreciate the truth
of that.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
Depends what we are in relation to it. A thought maybem a creation. I
cannot put a specific answer to that question.
It's not a question. It does consider that a Godlike being almost certainly
would not be restricted to one singular point of existence. And remember that
many religious beliefs think humans aren't either. It doesn't seem realistic to
think that humans may not be, but that God is.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
Not really. perhaps it doesn't care. Perhaps it made us then moved on.
Perhaps we are a side effect and it knows nothing of our existance.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
It certainly looks that way.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
A reasonable conclusion.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
We've not heard from you in a while. I always enjoyed your brand of
trolling. It was so much more imaginative than the run of the mill troll.
Thanks. Do you agree with everything on the list, as you should?
I'll take a look.
Brown Sugar
2013-10-03 07:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Alien what?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Assuming it was just one?
Not really. One being in command of the project is how I think of it, with
billions of beings involved. It could be a corporate or governmental sort of
situation too, but if there was contact with humans years ago it seems they were
encouraged to believe one being has control overall, so why not lean toward
that?
I recall once or twice people have reffered to god as a being, only one.
they say. I ask, what happened to the rest of his species? Your point is
reasonable but then there's the question, why?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
Sort of. I think the supernatural is just science we haven't discovered yet.
That's the same idea.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Would it? How so?
We wouldn't be having this discussion for one thing. There would be no
atheists for another. Lots more praying would be done, much of it by people who
have never prayed. Can you really not comprehend that everything would be
different if we had proof of God's existence? Just KNOWING would make things
hugely different without even considering what else might be different because
of HOW God made himself known, if he were to do so.
Different? Yes. Worse? No. Besides, if there was a god or gods they
might not even require we grovel to them through prayer;)
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
That sounds reasonable.
It sure does but I have noticed, and you might also, that that's one of the
things some people are opposed to taking into consideration. Some atheists want
to cling to any unlikely characteristic they can try to impose on God, because
it makes it that much easier in their attempts to believe he doesn't exist,
which you've already seen that some of them are amusingly ashamed of.
I agree. They fix on the old man in the clouds with the white beard then
get angry at the suggestion of his existance. I don't think there's a
man with a beard up there but nature does seem well engineered. Through
design or evelution, it doesn't matter. The pagans do have a broader
perception but share the arrogance of the Christians and athiests.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
I know what you're getting at but I would say "any god or gods" rather
than a specific one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
I can see that. I have noticed that with most religionsm the diety is
incidental.
Contrary to what some of the clueless clowns around here would like people
to believe, there are a few strong atheists who are not ashamed of it and those
are the people I've most noticed can't comprehend considering both
possibilities. I've been told by such people that I do believe, and also that I
don't believe, but I don't recall any of them ever accepting the fact that I
don't have a true belief.
True. Both thiests and athiests are closed minded. The agnostics are
open minded.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
Yes I agree with that one.
It seems strange to me, but a lot of people don't try to think open
mindedly. They seem to try to keep it simple and over simplify...or maybe they
really make it more complicated BY trying to keep it more simple than it is. The
[al-Baqarah 2:62] Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed
unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians,
and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and
doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
[al-`Ankabut 29:46]
And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do
wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him
we surrender.
Doesn't read like a book of terrorists to me. :)
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Yes
I'm glad the clueless ones haven't fooled you into not being aware of that.
It's a point I made elswehere and they gunned at me for it. At least
someone, you has also perceived it.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
Yes
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Not really. That's fascism. People will beleive what they beleive
The point is we shouldn't let it contaminate our own way of thinking. If it
can add something then we got lucky but a lot of things people try to get us to
believe don't help at all with trying to think realistically, and that includes
both believers and disbelievers.
Fair enough but they will beleive what they beleive and their minds will
not open, not even to their own reason.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
You can't really stop them
Sure you can. When someone tries to compare God to a rockinghorse orbiting
Saturn or whatever you can consider the possibility that there could be xts that
have rockinghorses aboard their vessils and that some of them have orbitted
Saturn. When someone calls God a sky pixie you can think how stupid it is since
the idea of God residing ON this planet is absurd, so trying to make fun of him
being in the "sky" is retarded. Stuff like that...
I think the debate is a teapot existing in the rings of saturn being as
likely as god. It's an agnostic athiest perception. the idea is that
they think it's unlikely but not impossible.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
Not really. Dependancy on technology is a weakness and weakness impedes
godleyness.
No it doesn't. That's not thinking realistically. That's the opposite of
thinking realistically in fact, otherwise the world would be ruled by naked
humans with no tools or weapons. You should try to learn to appreciate the truth
of that.
Why would anything as powerful as gods need them? Evolution i see as a
tool but it's not technology. The whole point of agnosticism is we don't
even know what "realistically" is.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
Depends what we are in relation to it. A thought maybem a creation. I
cannot put a specific answer to that question.
It's not a question. It does consider that a Godlike being almost certainly
would not be restricted to one singular point of existence. And remember that
many religious beliefs think humans aren't either. It doesn't seem realistic to
think that humans may not be, but that God is.
It's a possibility.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
Not really. perhaps it doesn't care. Perhaps it made us then moved on.
Perhaps we are a side effect and it knows nothing of our existance.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
It certainly looks that way.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
A reasonable conclusion.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
We've not heard from you in a while. I always enjoyed your brand of
trolling. It was so much more imaginative than the run of the mill troll.
Thanks. Do you agree with everything on the list, as you should?
I'll take a look.
--
J
SkyEyes
2013-10-03 07:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Brown Sugar <***@softbrownsugar.net> wrote in news:l2j5ii$v7c$***@news.albasani.net:

<Large snippage>
Post by MarkA
I don't think
there's a man with a beard up there but nature does seem well
engineered. Through design or evelution, it doesn't matter.
"Well engineered"? You've got to be kidding. Look up the Vagus nerve.
Then look up the Vagus nerve in giraffes. Then ask the next man you meet
how he likes having his balls outside his body. Then eat your dinner and
try and talk and breathe all at the same time.

Well engineered, indeed.
Post by MarkA
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
I know what you're getting at but I would say "any god or gods"
rather than a specific one.
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually
find it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the
possibility that God does not exist and also the possibility
that he does.
I can see that. I have noticed that with most religionsm the diety
is incidental.
Contrary to what some of the clueless clowns around here would like people
to believe, there are a few strong atheists who are not ashamed of it
and those are the people I've most noticed can't comprehend
considering both possibilities. I've been told by such people that I
do believe, and also that I don't believe, but I don't recall any of
them ever accepting the fact that I don't have a true belief.
True. Both thiests and athiests are closed minded. The agnostics are
open minded.
What horseshit. Being an atheist and being an agnostic are not mutually
exclusive - I, for instance, am an agnostic [weak] atheist. That's
because one, agnosticism, is a statement about knowledge, while the
other, atheism, is a statement about *belief*. I have no knowledge that
any gods exist, therefore, I am an *agnostic*. Because I lack any
knowledge concerning gods, I also lack belief in any - i.e., I'm an
*atheist*.

And I'm perfectly willing to give up my atheism if someone, *anyone*, can
just supply me with a small amount of evidence that any god exists. So
far, nobody has. That doesn't make me closed-minded. I would venture to
say that most of the atheists and agnostic-atheists (which are the
majority of the regulars in alt.atheism) feel the same.
--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
d***@.
2013-10-04 20:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Alien what?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Assuming it was just one?
Not really. One being in command of the project is how I think of it, with
billions of beings involved. It could be a corporate or governmental sort of
situation too, but if there was contact with humans years ago it seems they were
encouraged to believe one being has control overall, so why not lean toward
that?
I recall once or twice people have reffered to god as a being, only one.
they say. I ask, what happened to the rest of his species? Your point is
reasonable but then there's the question, why?
My guess would be that others of his species have other projects.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
Sort of. I think the supernatural is just science we haven't discovered yet.
That's the same idea.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Would it? How so?
We wouldn't be having this discussion for one thing. There would be no
atheists for another. Lots more praying would be done, much of it by people who
have never prayed. Can you really not comprehend that everything would be
different if we had proof of God's existence? Just KNOWING would make things
hugely different without even considering what else might be different because
of HOW God made himself known, if he were to do so.
Different? Yes. Worse? No.
You can't know if it would or not. It would depend on what he did.
Post by Brown Sugar
Besides, if there was a god or gods they
might not even require we grovel to them through prayer;)
Besides prayer what other ways are you considering people use to try
communicating with him?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
That sounds reasonable.
It sure does but I have noticed, and you might also, that that's one of the
things some people are opposed to taking into consideration. Some atheists want
to cling to any unlikely characteristic they can try to impose on God, because
it makes it that much easier in their attempts to believe he doesn't exist,
which you've already seen that some of them are amusingly ashamed of.
I agree. They fix on the old man in the clouds with the white beard then
get angry at the suggestion of his existance. I don't think there's a
man with a beard up there but nature does seem well engineered.
There's no reason to think God would be restricted to the body of an old man
imo. I agree that nature seems to be well engineered. It may or may not be
possible that things could have developed as they did without help, but they
seem to be well engineered whether they could have or not. That's another
starting line that some people can't get to.
Post by Brown Sugar
Through
design or evelution, it doesn't matter. The pagans do have a broader
perception
Not many of them from my pov. Most of them seem to think evolution makes God
impossible, while in fact it could reveal things about how God got things
accomplished.
Post by Brown Sugar
but share the arrogance of the Christians and athiests.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
I know what you're getting at but I would say "any god or gods" rather
than a specific one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
I can see that. I have noticed that with most religionsm the diety is
incidental.
Contrary to what some of the clueless clowns around here would like people
to believe, there are a few strong atheists who are not ashamed of it and those
are the people I've most noticed can't comprehend considering both
possibilities. I've been told by such people that I do believe, and also that I
don't believe, but I don't recall any of them ever accepting the fact that I
don't have a true belief.
True. Both thiests and athiests are closed minded. The agnostics are
open minded.
If God exists it's possible that he has let some of his people know about
it, so some thiests might be closed minded because God has let them know he's
there. In contrast to that no one can know it if God does not exist. If he
doesn't those who believe he doesn't couldn't know that. At best all they could
have is a lucky guess. Of course if he does exist they don't even have that
much.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
Yes I agree with that one.
It seems strange to me, but a lot of people don't try to think open
mindedly. They seem to try to keep it simple and over simplify...or maybe they
really make it more complicated BY trying to keep it more simple than it is. The
[al-Baqarah 2:62] Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed
unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians,
and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and
doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
[al-`Ankabut 29:46]
And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do
wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him
we surrender.
Doesn't read like a book of terrorists to me. :)
It does encourage some killing, but also warns that God does not love the
aggressor.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Yes
I'm glad the clueless ones haven't fooled you into not being aware of that.
It's a point I made elswehere and they gunned at me for it. At least
someone, you has also perceived it.
I've been pointing it out to them for years, and they have shown that
they're ashamed of it for years.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
Yes
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Not really. That's fascism. People will beleive what they beleive
The point is we shouldn't let it contaminate our own way of thinking. If it
can add something then we got lucky but a lot of things people try to get us to
believe don't help at all with trying to think realistically, and that includes
both believers and disbelievers.
Fair enough but they will beleive what they beleive and their minds will
not open, not even to their own reason.
Many people are like that both believers and disbelievers, but to try
thinking realistically we can't let them contaminate our attempt.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
You can't really stop them
Sure you can. When someone tries to compare God to a rockinghorse orbiting
Saturn or whatever you can consider the possibility that there could be xts that
have rockinghorses aboard their vessils and that some of them have orbitted
Saturn. When someone calls God a sky pixie you can think how stupid it is since
the idea of God residing ON this planet is absurd, so trying to make fun of him
being in the "sky" is retarded. Stuff like that...
I think the debate is a teapot existing in the rings of saturn being as
likely as god. It's an agnostic athiest perception. the idea is that
they think it's unlikely but not impossible.
They have a few things like that they think are clever, but we can think
about the possibilities realistically even though they can not. God could have
created the universe (or whatever) in the form of an invisible pink unicorn for
example, invisible to human eye if it was microscopic.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
Not really. Dependancy on technology is a weakness and weakness impedes
godleyness.
No it doesn't. That's not thinking realistically. That's the opposite of
thinking realistically in fact, otherwise the world would be ruled by naked
humans with no tools or weapons. You should try to learn to appreciate the truth
of that.
Why would anything as powerful as gods need them?
The harder question is: why wouldn't they? How could they become gods
without them?
Post by Brown Sugar
Evolution i see as a
tool but it's not technology. The whole point of agnosticism is we don't
even know what "realistically" is.
That's part of it, but we can only try from the position we're in, or not.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
Depends what we are in relation to it. A thought maybem a creation. I
cannot put a specific answer to that question.
It's not a question. It does consider that a Godlike being almost certainly
would not be restricted to one singular point of existence. And remember that
many religious beliefs think humans aren't either. It doesn't seem realistic to
think that humans may not be, but that God is.
It's a possibility.
Just the time of his existence alone says he would not be restricted to any
single form, from my pov.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
Not really. perhaps it doesn't care. Perhaps it made us then moved on.
Perhaps we are a side effect and it knows nothing of our existance.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
It certainly looks that way.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
A reasonable conclusion.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
We've not heard from you in a while. I always enjoyed your brand of
trolling. It was so much more imaginative than the run of the mill troll.
Thanks. Do you agree with everything on the list, as you should?
I'll take a look.
Brown Sugar
2013-10-04 21:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Alien what?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Assuming it was just one?
Not really. One being in command of the project is how I think of it, with
billions of beings involved. It could be a corporate or governmental sort of
situation too, but if there was contact with humans years ago it seems they were
encouraged to believe one being has control overall, so why not lean toward
that?
I recall once or twice people have reffered to god as a being, only one.
they say. I ask, what happened to the rest of his species? Your point is
reasonable but then there's the question, why?
My guess would be that others of his species have other projects.
How very "human" but then, why not?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
Sort of. I think the supernatural is just science we haven't discovered yet.
That's the same idea.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Would it? How so?
We wouldn't be having this discussion for one thing. There would be no
atheists for another. Lots more praying would be done, much of it by people who
have never prayed. Can you really not comprehend that everything would be
different if we had proof of God's existence? Just KNOWING would make things
hugely different without even considering what else might be different because
of HOW God made himself known, if he were to do so.
Different? Yes. Worse? No.
You can't know if it would or not. It would depend on what he did.
I can't "know" any of it. That's what the agnosticism in me is.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Besides, if there was a god or gods they
might not even require we grovel to them through prayer;)
Besides prayer what other ways are you considering people use to try
communicating with him?
Telephone, letter, shaking it by the hand, if it has one. It proberly
even has e-mail.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
That sounds reasonable.
It sure does but I have noticed, and you might also, that that's one of the
things some people are opposed to taking into consideration. Some atheists want
to cling to any unlikely characteristic they can try to impose on God, because
it makes it that much easier in their attempts to believe he doesn't exist,
which you've already seen that some of them are amusingly ashamed of.
I agree. They fix on the old man in the clouds with the white beard then
get angry at the suggestion of his existance. I don't think there's a
man with a beard up there but nature does seem well engineered.
There's no reason to think God would be restricted to the body of an old man
imo. I agree that nature seems to be well engineered. It may or may not be
possible that things could have developed as they did without help, but they
seem to be well engineered whether they could have or not. That's another
starting line that some people can't get to.
I think it's a "comfort zone" issue.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Through
design or evelution, it doesn't matter. The pagans do have a broader
perception
Not many of them from my pov. Most of them seem to think evolution makes God
impossible, while in fact it could reveal things about how God got things
accomplished.
Depends on the school to be honest. They all have a god concept. Some
one, some many, some none.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
but share the arrogance of the Christians and athiests.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
I know what you're getting at but I would say "any god or gods" rather
than a specific one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
I can see that. I have noticed that with most religionsm the diety is
incidental.
Contrary to what some of the clueless clowns around here would like people
to believe, there are a few strong atheists who are not ashamed of it and those
are the people I've most noticed can't comprehend considering both
possibilities. I've been told by such people that I do believe, and also that I
don't believe, but I don't recall any of them ever accepting the fact that I
don't have a true belief.
True. Both thiests and athiests are closed minded. The agnostics are
open minded.
If God exists it's possible that he has let some of his people know about
it, so some thiests might be closed minded because God has let them know he's
there. In contrast to that no one can know it if God does not exist. If he
doesn't those who believe he doesn't couldn't know that. At best all they could
have is a lucky guess. Of course if he does exist they don't even have that
much.
If any god let theists know of it's presence, had it wanted the rest of
us to know it would have opened our minds. Minds are so closed there
have been wars.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
Yes I agree with that one.
It seems strange to me, but a lot of people don't try to think open
mindedly. They seem to try to keep it simple and over simplify...or maybe they
really make it more complicated BY trying to keep it more simple than it is. The
[al-Baqarah 2:62] Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed
unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians,
and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and
doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
[al-`Ankabut 29:46]
And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do
wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him
we surrender.
Doesn't read like a book of terrorists to me. :)
It does encourage some killing, but also warns that God does not love the
aggressor.
All scriptures can be interpreted that way or any way the preacher sees fit.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Yes
I'm glad the clueless ones haven't fooled you into not being aware of that.
It's a point I made elswehere and they gunned at me for it. At least
someone, you has also perceived it.
I've been pointing it out to them for years, and they have shown that
they're ashamed of it for years.
Or scared of it.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
Yes
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Not really. That's fascism. People will beleive what they beleive
The point is we shouldn't let it contaminate our own way of thinking. If it
can add something then we got lucky but a lot of things people try to get us to
believe don't help at all with trying to think realistically, and that includes
both believers and disbelievers.
Fair enough but they will beleive what they beleive and their minds will
not open, not even to their own reason.
Many people are like that both believers and disbelievers, but to try
thinking realistically we can't let them contaminate our attempt.
They will try.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
You can't really stop them
Sure you can. When someone tries to compare God to a rockinghorse orbiting
Saturn or whatever you can consider the possibility that there could be xts that
have rockinghorses aboard their vessils and that some of them have orbitted
Saturn. When someone calls God a sky pixie you can think how stupid it is since
the idea of God residing ON this planet is absurd, so trying to make fun of him
being in the "sky" is retarded. Stuff like that...
I think the debate is a teapot existing in the rings of saturn being as
likely as god. It's an agnostic athiest perception. the idea is that
they think it's unlikely but not impossible.
They have a few things like that they think are clever, but we can think
about the possibilities realistically even though they can not. God could have
created the universe (or whatever) in the form of an invisible pink unicorn for
example, invisible to human eye if it was microscopic.
Perhaps it still easy. we look from inside the universe. We cannot see
it's shape or it's neighbours'
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
Not really. Dependancy on technology is a weakness and weakness impedes
godleyness.
No it doesn't. That's not thinking realistically. That's the opposite of
thinking realistically in fact, otherwise the world would be ruled by naked
humans with no tools or weapons. You should try to learn to appreciate the truth
of that.
Why would anything as powerful as gods need them?
The harder question is: why wouldn't they? How could they become gods
without them?
Evolution.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Evolution i see as a
tool but it's not technology. The whole point of agnosticism is we don't
even know what "realistically" is.
That's part of it, but we can only try from the position we're in, or not.
All guesses
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
Depends what we are in relation to it. A thought maybem a creation. I
cannot put a specific answer to that question.
It's not a question. It does consider that a Godlike being almost certainly
would not be restricted to one singular point of existence. And remember that
many religious beliefs think humans aren't either. It doesn't seem realistic to
think that humans may not be, but that God is.
It's a possibility.
Just the time of his existence alone says he would not be restricted to any
single form, from my pov.
It's all POV but interesting nevertheless.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
Not really. perhaps it doesn't care. Perhaps it made us then moved on.
Perhaps we are a side effect and it knows nothing of our existance.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
It certainly looks that way.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
A reasonable conclusion.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
We've not heard from you in a while. I always enjoyed your brand of
trolling. It was so much more imaginative than the run of the mill troll.
Thanks. Do you agree with everything on the list, as you should?
I'll take a look.
--
J
d***@.
2013-10-07 22:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Alien what?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Assuming it was just one?
Not really. One being in command of the project is how I think of it, with
billions of beings involved. It could be a corporate or governmental sort of
situation too, but if there was contact with humans years ago it seems they were
encouraged to believe one being has control overall, so why not lean toward
that?
I recall once or twice people have reffered to god as a being, only one.
they say. I ask, what happened to the rest of his species? Your point is
reasonable but then there's the question, why?
My guess would be that others of his species have other projects.
How very "human"
No more so than very beaver, or very ant, or very bird, or very caterpillar,
or very hornet, or very any other types of creatures that have any sort of
projects. There are beavers with projects in New Hampshire, and beavers with
projects in Mexico, etc....
Post by Brown Sugar
but then, why not?
There could be any number of reasons why or why not. The universe is
supposed to include everything by my interpretation of the term. If that's
literally the truth then anything people consider to be different universes are
all really in the same one, so they should come up with a different name for it.
For years I couldn't think of how there could be more than one, but I finally
settled on kind of an idea. If we consider that some big bang included all
matter in this particular area where the explosion took place and the resulting
debris field or whatever it's called, there could be other such explosions
outside of our debris field area. If there's a being who oversees the explosion
and resulting deveopment to watever extent, and other beings who do similarly in
different areas of "space", then that's one possible way a few ideas can be
considered realistically possible from our position.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
Sort of. I think the supernatural is just science we haven't discovered yet.
That's the same idea.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Would it? How so?
We wouldn't be having this discussion for one thing. There would be no
atheists for another. Lots more praying would be done, much of it by people who
have never prayed. Can you really not comprehend that everything would be
different if we had proof of God's existence? Just KNOWING would make things
hugely different without even considering what else might be different because
of HOW God made himself known, if he were to do so.
Different? Yes. Worse? No.
You can't know if it would or not. It would depend on what he did.
I can't "know" any of it. That's what the agnosticism in me is.
It's interesting that you seem confident it wouldn't be worse if we knew for
a fact that God exists. So far I don't think so. I did for years, and tried to
get him to let me know if he does exist, so I wouldn't waste a lot of time
thinking about a lot of bullshit for my entire life. He never did let me know,
and I have been thinking about a lot of extra bullshit my whole life whether he
exists or not, since no doubt even if he does a lot of the possibilities I
consider don't apply. But then as time went on I've come to believe it's
probably best that we don't know. Maybe if humans reach a certain point it would
be good, but I don't believe we're at it yet.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Besides, if there was a god or gods they
might not even require we grovel to them through prayer;)
Besides prayer what other ways are you considering people use to try
communicating with him?
Telephone, letter, shaking it by the hand, if it has one. It proberly
even has e-mail.
I would think written language using a computer type device is way below
their level. Remember pretty much everything you hear about God or xts doing
something is pretty much just by thinking about it and saying it, and also
remember there are plenty of descriptions of telepathic type stuff, and visions
given, etc. So imo they tap into their computer type devices through some sort
of telepathic methods, and from there the possibilities are boundless.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
That sounds reasonable.
It sure does but I have noticed, and you might also, that that's one of the
things some people are opposed to taking into consideration. Some atheists want
to cling to any unlikely characteristic they can try to impose on God, because
it makes it that much easier in their attempts to believe he doesn't exist,
which you've already seen that some of them are amusingly ashamed of.
I agree. They fix on the old man in the clouds with the white beard then
get angry at the suggestion of his existance. I don't think there's a
man with a beard up there but nature does seem well engineered.
There's no reason to think God would be restricted to the body of an old man
imo. I agree that nature seems to be well engineered. It may or may not be
possible that things could have developed as they did without help, but they
seem to be well engineered whether they could have or not. That's another
starting line that some people can't get to.
I think it's a "comfort zone" issue.
It is the most pathetic position to cling to, imo. If we knew of lots of
examples of species giving birth to different species and humans were doing it
because it's easy, and if humans could easily create life from lifeless material
and were doing it because it was easy, to make food and whatever, then it would
be different and there would be less reason to think it didn't all just happen
to happen just by chance. But.........
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Through
design or evelution, it doesn't matter. The pagans do have a broader
perception
Not many of them from my pov. Most of them seem to think evolution makes God
impossible, while in fact it could reveal things about how God got things
accomplished.
Depends on the school to be honest. They all have a god concept. Some
one, some many, some none.
Well my impression is that most people believe it was either God OR
evolution, which to me has always seemed like a completely wrong way of thinking
about it from the first time I heard about it specifically. That was in a
biology class. I never did believe it, but instead feel that what science learns
would tell us more about how God gets things done, which is the opposite of what
a lot of people seem to believe.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
but share the arrogance of the Christians and athiests.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
I know what you're getting at but I would say "any god or gods" rather
than a specific one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
I can see that. I have noticed that with most religionsm the diety is
incidental.
Contrary to what some of the clueless clowns around here would like people
to believe, there are a few strong atheists who are not ashamed of it and those
are the people I've most noticed can't comprehend considering both
possibilities. I've been told by such people that I do believe, and also that I
don't believe, but I don't recall any of them ever accepting the fact that I
don't have a true belief.
True. Both thiests and athiests are closed minded. The agnostics are
open minded.
If God exists it's possible that he has let some of his people know about
it, so some thiests might be closed minded because God has let them know he's
there. In contrast to that no one can know it if God does not exist. If he
doesn't those who believe he doesn't couldn't know that. At best all they could
have is a lucky guess. Of course if he does exist they don't even have that
much.
If any god let theists know of it's presence, had it wanted the rest of
us to know it would have opened our minds.
A strong agnostic doesn't believe it's possible for anyone to know if God
exists or not. They feel that even if a person believes God did let them know
they can't know for sure because it could have been a halucination or something
like that. A weak agnostic believes that if God exists some people can know it.
I'm a weak agnostic. Maybe you're a strong agnostic? I hope not, because that's
an unrealistic position to hold imo.
Post by Brown Sugar
Minds are so closed there have been wars.
There probably have been wars over truly religious issues but I'm guessing
that the vast majority of wars supposedly fought for religious reasons were more
for personal interests than religious, and would have been fought using some
other excuse even if the concept of God didn't exist on this planet. Remember
that a lot of the coloonising of the US was said to be to bring Christianity to
the country. But! If there were no such thing as Christianity my guess is that
it would have been the same result using a different excuse.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
Yes I agree with that one.
It seems strange to me, but a lot of people don't try to think open
mindedly. They seem to try to keep it simple and over simplify...or maybe they
really make it more complicated BY trying to keep it more simple than it is. The
[al-Baqarah 2:62] Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed
unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians,
and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and
doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
[al-`Ankabut 29:46]
And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do
wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him
we surrender.
Doesn't read like a book of terrorists to me. :)
It does encourage some killing, but also warns that God does not love the
aggressor.
All scriptures can be interpreted that way or any way the preacher sees fit.
There's always the alternative that you can decide what you think about
things for yourself, like:

9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find
them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.

66:9 Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and hypocrites, and deal sternly
with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate.

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not
attack them first. God does not love the aggressors.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Yes
I'm glad the clueless ones haven't fooled you into not being aware of that.
It's a point I made elswehere and they gunned at me for it. At least
someone, you has also perceived it.
I've been pointing it out to them for years, and they have shown that
they're ashamed of it for years.
Or scared of it.
Good point. They sure have sneaked away from discussing it. I guess you
can't expect much from people who have been sort of discussing this type topic
for years and STILL can't accept the different types of atheism. And even though
they claim to have no believe I still believe they do, and that their belief
clearly is that God does not exist. Whether they think no gods exist anywhere in
the universe or only have that belief about this star system is another starting
line they can't get to...they never seem able to answer that question.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
Yes
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Not really. That's fascism. People will beleive what they beleive
The point is we shouldn't let it contaminate our own way of thinking. If it
can add something then we got lucky but a lot of things people try to get us to
believe don't help at all with trying to think realistically, and that includes
both believers and disbelievers.
Fair enough but they will beleive what they beleive and their minds will
not open, not even to their own reason.
Many people are like that both believers and disbelievers, but to try
thinking realistically we can't let them contaminate our attempt.
They will try.
Yes but that's pretty much the most fun we can get out of them. If they
could move on and start thinking more that would be more fun, but they never
seem to do that so the most fun we're ever likely to get out of them is when
they try to persuade us to believe something unrealistic and we can laugh and
ridicule it as they like to do toward other people.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
You can't really stop them
Sure you can. When someone tries to compare God to a rockinghorse orbiting
Saturn or whatever you can consider the possibility that there could be xts that
have rockinghorses aboard their vessils and that some of them have orbitted
Saturn. When someone calls God a sky pixie you can think how stupid it is since
the idea of God residing ON this planet is absurd, so trying to make fun of him
being in the "sky" is retarded. Stuff like that...
I think the debate is a teapot existing in the rings of saturn being as
likely as god. It's an agnostic athiest perception. the idea is that
they think it's unlikely but not impossible.
They have a few things like that they think are clever, but we can think
about the possibilities realistically even though they can not. God could have
created the universe (or whatever) in the form of an invisible pink unicorn for
example, invisible to human eye if it was microscopic.
Perhaps it still easy. we look from inside the universe. We cannot see
it's shape or it's neighbours'
No. Having confidence that God doesn't exist is like it would be if some
microorganisms in our bodies have intelligence and are confident that we don't
exist.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
Not really. Dependancy on technology is a weakness and weakness impedes
godleyness.
No it doesn't. That's not thinking realistically. That's the opposite of
thinking realistically in fact, otherwise the world would be ruled by naked
humans with no tools or weapons. You should try to learn to appreciate the truth
of that.
Why would anything as powerful as gods need them?
The harder question is: why wouldn't they? How could they become gods
without them?
Evolution.
Technological advancement is evolution, and it influences evolution. You
need to say how evolution without technological advancement could produce a
being that can manipulate matter, and survive independant of any star or planet,
and is capable of traveling to different star systems. If you can't explain
that, then you should upgrade your thinking. If you can provide a realistic
explanation, then I'll upgrade mine but I don't believe you can even come close.
Try though, if you can think of anthing.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Evolution i see as a
tool but it's not technology. The whole point of agnosticism is we don't
even know what "realistically" is.
That's part of it, but we can only try from the position we're in, or not.
All guesses
We guess we're alive. Once I told a guy in a ng that he was really dead and
reliving his life over and over again through a computer program. I told him as
a rule living people aren't allowed to contact or have any influence over those
who are dead and in his position, but that they made an exception in my case
because he was my uncle and he had a significant hand in developing the
technology. He didn't believe it of course, but he did like the concept.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
Depends what we are in relation to it. A thought maybem a creation. I
cannot put a specific answer to that question.
It's not a question. It does consider that a Godlike being almost certainly
would not be restricted to one singular point of existence. And remember that
many religious beliefs think humans aren't either. It doesn't seem realistic to
think that humans may not be, but that God is.
It's a possibility.
Just the time of his existence alone says he would not be restricted to any
single form, from my pov.
It's all POV but interesting nevertheless.
If nothing else it's a lot more interesting than trying to cling to the one
possibility strong atheists put their faith in.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
Not really. perhaps it doesn't care. Perhaps it made us then moved on.
Perhaps we are a side effect and it knows nothing of our existance.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
It certainly looks that way.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
A reasonable conclusion.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
We've not heard from you in a while. I always enjoyed your brand of
trolling. It was so much more imaginative than the run of the mill troll.
Thanks. Do you agree with everything on the list, as you should?
I'll take a look.
Brown Sugar
2013-10-08 05:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Years ago I began trying to think realistically about the possibility that
God does exist. I made up a list of some basic things I consider to be part of
making such an attempt and like to present it from time to time. Here's the
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
Alien what?
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Assuming it was just one?
Not really. One being in command of the project is how I think of it, with
billions of beings involved. It could be a corporate or governmental sort of
situation too, but if there was contact with humans years ago it seems they were
encouraged to believe one being has control overall, so why not lean toward
that?
I recall once or twice people have reffered to god as a being, only one.
they say. I ask, what happened to the rest of his species? Your point is
reasonable but then there's the question, why?
My guess would be that others of his species have other projects.
How very "human"
No more so than very beaver, or very ant, or very bird, or very caterpillar,
or very hornet, or very any other types of creatures that have any sort of
projects. There are beavers with projects in New Hampshire, and beavers with
projects in Mexico, etc....
That I cannot asnwer. I am only human and to understand the nature of
other creatures I would have to be one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
but then, why not?
There could be any number of reasons why or why not. The universe is
supposed to include everything by my interpretation of the term. If that's
literally the truth then anything people consider to be different universes are
all really in the same one, so they should come up with a different name for it.
For years I couldn't think of how there could be more than one, but I finally
settled on kind of an idea. If we consider that some big bang included all
matter in this particular area where the explosion took place and the resulting
debris field or whatever it's called, there could be other such explosions
outside of our debris field area. If there's a being who oversees the explosion
and resulting deveopment to watever extent, and other beings who do similarly in
different areas of "space", then that's one possible way a few ideas can be
considered realistically possible from our position.
We will never find out. given we cannot even guage the expanse of this
universe let alone whether we are the only one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
Sort of. I think the supernatural is just science we haven't discovered yet.
That's the same idea.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Would it? How so?
We wouldn't be having this discussion for one thing. There would be no
atheists for another. Lots more praying would be done, much of it by people who
have never prayed. Can you really not comprehend that everything would be
different if we had proof of God's existence? Just KNOWING would make things
hugely different without even considering what else might be different because
of HOW God made himself known, if he were to do so.
Different? Yes. Worse? No.
You can't know if it would or not. It would depend on what he did.
I can't "know" any of it. That's what the agnosticism in me is.
It's interesting that you seem confident it wouldn't be worse if we knew for
a fact that God exists. So far I don't think so. I did for years, and tried to
get him to let me know if he does exist, so I wouldn't waste a lot of time
thinking about a lot of bullshit for my entire life. He never did let me know,
and I have been thinking about a lot of extra bullshit my whole life whether he
exists or not, since no doubt even if he does a lot of the possibilities I
consider don't apply. But then as time went on I've come to believe it's
probably best that we don't know. Maybe if humans reach a certain point it would
be good, but I don't believe we're at it yet.
I don't think it would be any worse. There would be fewer wars, we would
have closure and we would know if there's any point getting up in the
morning.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Besides, if there was a god or gods they
might not even require we grovel to them through prayer;)
Besides prayer what other ways are you considering people use to try
communicating with him?
Telephone, letter, shaking it by the hand, if it has one. It proberly
even has e-mail.
I would think written language using a computer type device is way below
their level. Remember pretty much everything you hear about God or xts doing
something is pretty much just by thinking about it and saying it, and also
remember there are plenty of descriptions of telepathic type stuff, and visions
given, etc. So imo they tap into their computer type devices through some sort
of telepathic methods, and from there the possibilities are boundless.
We have no way of knowing if they would hear us at all.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
That sounds reasonable.
It sure does but I have noticed, and you might also, that that's one of the
things some people are opposed to taking into consideration. Some atheists want
to cling to any unlikely characteristic they can try to impose on God, because
it makes it that much easier in their attempts to believe he doesn't exist,
which you've already seen that some of them are amusingly ashamed of.
I agree. They fix on the old man in the clouds with the white beard then
get angry at the suggestion of his existance. I don't think there's a
man with a beard up there but nature does seem well engineered.
There's no reason to think God would be restricted to the body of an old man
imo. I agree that nature seems to be well engineered. It may or may not be
possible that things could have developed as they did without help, but they
seem to be well engineered whether they could have or not. That's another
starting line that some people can't get to.
I think it's a "comfort zone" issue.
It is the most pathetic position to cling to, imo. If we knew of lots of
examples of species giving birth to different species and humans were doing it
because it's easy, and if humans could easily create life from lifeless material
and were doing it because it was easy, to make food and whatever, then it would
be different and there would be less reason to think it didn't all just happen
to happen just by chance. But.........
Pathetic or not. It's what people do.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Through
design or evelution, it doesn't matter. The pagans do have a broader
perception
Not many of them from my pov. Most of them seem to think evolution makes God
impossible, while in fact it could reveal things about how God got things
accomplished.
Depends on the school to be honest. They all have a god concept. Some
one, some many, some none.
Well my impression is that most people believe it was either God OR
evolution, which to me has always seemed like a completely wrong way of thinking
about it from the first time I heard about it specifically. That was in a
biology class. I never did believe it, but instead feel that what science learns
would tell us more about how God gets things done, which is the opposite of what
a lot of people seem to believe.
I got introduced to a philosophy tutor once becasue I dared ask, why
does theology and evolution have to be mutually exclusive.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
but share the arrogance of the Christians and athiests.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
I know what you're getting at but I would say "any god or gods" rather
than a specific one.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
I can see that. I have noticed that with most religionsm the diety is
incidental.
Contrary to what some of the clueless clowns around here would like people
to believe, there are a few strong atheists who are not ashamed of it and those
are the people I've most noticed can't comprehend considering both
possibilities. I've been told by such people that I do believe, and also that I
don't believe, but I don't recall any of them ever accepting the fact that I
don't have a true belief.
True. Both thiests and athiests are closed minded. The agnostics are
open minded.
If God exists it's possible that he has let some of his people know about
it, so some thiests might be closed minded because God has let them know he's
there. In contrast to that no one can know it if God does not exist. If he
doesn't those who believe he doesn't couldn't know that. At best all they could
have is a lucky guess. Of course if he does exist they don't even have that
much.
If any god let theists know of it's presence, had it wanted the rest of
us to know it would have opened our minds.
A strong agnostic doesn't believe it's possible for anyone to know if God
exists or not. They feel that even if a person believes God did let them know
they can't know for sure because it could have been a halucination or something
like that. A weak agnostic believes that if God exists some people can know it.
I'm a weak agnostic. Maybe you're a strong agnostic? I hope not, because that's
an unrealistic position to hold imo.
If there was any form of god and it wanted us to know about it, it would
let us know. Personally I have doubts whether any god would give us
much thought let alone want us to pray to it.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Minds are so closed there have been wars.
There probably have been wars over truly religious issues but I'm guessing
that the vast majority of wars supposedly fought for religious reasons were more
for personal interests than religious, and would have been fought using some
other excuse even if the concept of God didn't exist on this planet. Remember
that a lot of the coloonising of the US was said to be to bring Christianity to
the country. But! If there were no such thing as Christianity my guess is that
it would have been the same result using a different excuse.
In my experince, most religious issues have little to do with any god.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
Yes I agree with that one.
It seems strange to me, but a lot of people don't try to think open
mindedly. They seem to try to keep it simple and over simplify...or maybe they
really make it more complicated BY trying to keep it more simple than it is. The
[al-Baqarah 2:62] Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed
unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians,
and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and
doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
[al-`Ankabut 29:46]
And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do
wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him
we surrender.
Doesn't read like a book of terrorists to me. :)
It does encourage some killing, but also warns that God does not love the
aggressor.
All scriptures can be interpreted that way or any way the preacher sees fit.
There's always the alternative that you can decide what you think about
9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find
them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
66:9 Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and hypocrites, and deal sternly
with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate.
2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not
attack them first. God does not love the aggressors.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
Yes
I'm glad the clueless ones haven't fooled you into not being aware of that.
It's a point I made elswehere and they gunned at me for it. At least
someone, you has also perceived it.
I've been pointing it out to them for years, and they have shown that
they're ashamed of it for years.
Or scared of it.
Good point. They sure have sneaked away from discussing it. I guess you
can't expect much from people who have been sort of discussing this type topic
for years and STILL can't accept the different types of atheism. And even though
they claim to have no believe I still believe they do, and that their belief
clearly is that God does not exist. Whether they think no gods exist anywhere in
the universe or only have that belief about this star system is another starting
line they can't get to...they never seem able to answer that question.
Yes, and there are still people who beleive what politicians tell them
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
Yes
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Not really. That's fascism. People will beleive what they beleive
The point is we shouldn't let it contaminate our own way of thinking. If it
can add something then we got lucky but a lot of things people try to get us to
believe don't help at all with trying to think realistically, and that includes
both believers and disbelievers.
Fair enough but they will beleive what they beleive and their minds will
not open, not even to their own reason.
Many people are like that both believers and disbelievers, but to try
thinking realistically we can't let them contaminate our attempt.
They will try.
Yes but that's pretty much the most fun we can get out of them. If they
could move on and start thinking more that would be more fun, but they never
seem to do that so the most fun we're ever likely to get out of them is when
they try to persuade us to believe something unrealistic and we can laugh and
ridicule it as they like to do toward other people.
Yes, it's called academia
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
You can't really stop them
Sure you can. When someone tries to compare God to a rockinghorse orbiting
Saturn or whatever you can consider the possibility that there could be xts that
have rockinghorses aboard their vessils and that some of them have orbitted
Saturn. When someone calls God a sky pixie you can think how stupid it is since
the idea of God residing ON this planet is absurd, so trying to make fun of him
being in the "sky" is retarded. Stuff like that...
I think the debate is a teapot existing in the rings of saturn being as
likely as god. It's an agnostic athiest perception. the idea is that
they think it's unlikely but not impossible.
They have a few things like that they think are clever, but we can think
about the possibilities realistically even though they can not. God could have
created the universe (or whatever) in the form of an invisible pink unicorn for
example, invisible to human eye if it was microscopic.
Perhaps it still easy. we look from inside the universe. We cannot see
it's shape or it's neighbours'
No. Having confidence that God doesn't exist is like it would be if some
microorganisms in our bodies have intelligence and are confident that we don't
exist.
I doubt they give it much thought.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
Not really. Dependancy on technology is a weakness and weakness impedes
godleyness.
No it doesn't. That's not thinking realistically. That's the opposite of
thinking realistically in fact, otherwise the world would be ruled by naked
humans with no tools or weapons. You should try to learn to appreciate the truth
of that.
Why would anything as powerful as gods need them?
The harder question is: why wouldn't they? How could they become gods
without them?
Evolution.
Technological advancement is evolution, and it influences evolution. You
need to say how evolution without technological advancement could produce a
being that can manipulate matter, and survive independant of any star or planet,
and is capable of traveling to different star systems. If you can't explain
that, then you should upgrade your thinking. If you can provide a realistic
explanation, then I'll upgrade mine but I don't believe you can even come close.
Try though, if you can think of anthing.
I don't agree. Technological advancement impedes the need for
evolutions. Perhaps had we not harnessed fire and made ways of
harnissing it we would have died out; or grown extra body hair and fat
and developed a way to digest raw meat.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Evolution i see as a
tool but it's not technology. The whole point of agnosticism is we don't
even know what "realistically" is.
That's part of it, but we can only try from the position we're in, or not.
All guesses
We guess we're alive. Once I told a guy in a ng that he was really dead and
reliving his life over and over again through a computer program. I told him as
a rule living people aren't allowed to contact or have any influence over those
who are dead and in his position, but that they made an exception in my case
because he was my uncle and he had a significant hand in developing the
technology. He didn't believe it of course, but he did like the concept.
Comfort zone again.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
Depends what we are in relation to it. A thought maybem a creation. I
cannot put a specific answer to that question.
It's not a question. It does consider that a Godlike being almost certainly
would not be restricted to one singular point of existence. And remember that
many religious beliefs think humans aren't either. It doesn't seem realistic to
think that humans may not be, but that God is.
It's a possibility.
Just the time of his existence alone says he would not be restricted to any
single form, from my pov.
It's all POV but interesting nevertheless.
If nothing else it's a lot more interesting than trying to cling to the one
possibility strong atheists put their faith in.
Agreed.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
Not really. perhaps it doesn't care. Perhaps it made us then moved on.
Perhaps we are a side effect and it knows nothing of our existance.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
It certainly looks that way.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
A reasonable conclusion.
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Hello, dear fellow. You've been quite
Huh?
We've not heard from you in a while. I always enjoyed your brand of
trolling. It was so much more imaginative than the run of the mill troll.
Thanks. Do you agree with everything on the list, as you should?
I'll take a look.
--
J
Uncle Vic
2013-09-28 14:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
Brown Sugar
2013-09-28 16:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
--
J
Christopher A. Lee
2013-09-28 16:21:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:06:46 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Hardly, moron - do you honestly (heh) not understand the difference
between the absence of a particular belief and having a specific
opposite belief?

Why do you morons imagine you arrogantly get to tell us what our POV
is, getting it rudely and stupidly wrong because the very presumptions
you use don't even apply outside your religion?
Brown Sugar
2013-09-29 08:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:06:46 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Hardly, moron -
Ah, the name calling. A symptom of the weak mind that fails to perceive
subjectivity, or a question mark.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
do you honestly (heh) not understand the difference
between the absence of a particular belief and having a specific
opposite belief?
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"? Take your time in
thinking about it, won't you. You will soon learn that knee jerk
responses are a symptom of the weak mind.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you morons imagine you arrogantly get to tell us what our POV is,
Ah the name calling again and the humour is that in this post, you are
trying to tell "us", whatever "us" is, what our POV is? Not to mention
pushing your POV onto "us". Take your time in thinking about it, won't
you. You will soon learn that knee jerk responses are a symptom of the
weak mind.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
is, getting it rudely and stupidly wrong because the very presumptions
you use don't even apply outside your religion?
I was responding to Uncle Vic, you came in after so I have no idea of
you POV just as you have no idea of mine.

My religion? What is that then?
--
J
Christopher A. Lee
2013-09-29 08:20:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:00:56 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:06:46 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Hardly, moron -
Ah, the name calling. A symptom of the weak mind that fails to perceive
subjectivity, or a question mark.
There was no name-calling, liar.

Why do you morons imagine everything revolves around what is merely
somebody else's religious belief?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
do you honestly (heh) not understand the difference
between the absence of a particular belief and having a specific
opposite belief?
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"? Take your time in
thinking about it, won't you. You will soon learn that knee jerk
responses are a symptom of the weak mind.
Yet another in-you-face, nasty, lying theist.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you morons imagine you arrogantly get to tell us what our POV is,
Ah the name calling again and the humour is that in this post, you are
trying to tell "us", whatever "us" is, what our POV is? Not to mention
pushing your POV onto "us". Take your time in thinking about it, won't
you. You will soon learn that knee jerk responses are a symptom of the
weak mind.
No name-calling, liar. Just observation.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
is, getting it rudely and stupidly wrong because the very presumptions
you use don't even apply outside your religion?
I was responding to Uncle Vic, you came in after so I have no idea of
you POV just as you have no idea of mine.
And you were still arrogantly, nastily wrong.
Post by Brown Sugar
My religion? What is that then?
Tacit acknowledgement that you _did_ get the point but couldn't admit
it, noted.
Brown Sugar
2013-09-29 11:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:00:56 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:06:46 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Hardly, moron -
Ah, the name calling. A symptom of the weak mind that fails to perceive
subjectivity, or a question mark.
There was no name-calling, liar.
Another name. Your mind is getting no stronger.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you morons
Another name. Your mind is getting no stronger.

imagine everything revolves around what is merely
Post by Christopher A. Lee
somebody else's religious belief?
Us? Who is us?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
do you honestly (heh) not understand the difference
between the absence of a particular belief and having a specific
opposite belief?
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"? Take your time in
thinking about it, won't you. You will soon learn that knee jerk
responses are a symptom of the weak mind.
Yet another in-you-face, nasty, lying theist.
You didn't get it. This is of no suprise. Theist? Which theism do you
imagine I follow?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you morons imagine you arrogantly get to tell us what our POV is,
Ah the name calling again and the humour is that in this post, you are
trying to tell "us", whatever "us" is, what our POV is? Not to mention
pushing your POV onto "us". Take your time in thinking about it, won't
you. You will soon learn that knee jerk responses are a symptom of the
weak mind.
No name-calling, liar. Just observation.
More name calling. You are out of your depth.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
is, getting it rudely and stupidly wrong because the very presumptions
you use don't even apply outside your religion?
I was responding to Uncle Vic, you came in after so I have no idea of
you POV just as you have no idea of mine.
And you were still arrogantly, nastily wrong.
About what?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
My religion? What is that then?
Tacit acknowledgement that you _did_ get the point but couldn't admit
it, noted.
You haven't answered the question. That I've noted.
--
J
Uncle Vic
2013-09-29 14:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something? Certainly not atheists.

To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
Christopher A. Lee
2013-09-29 15:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something? Certainly not atheists.
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
In what passes for the minds, we're arguing over the difference
between not believing the sun exists, and believing it doesn't.

Because they substitute their own mental picture of their god for what
it actually is, ie merely one of hundreds of different religious
beliefs that are only special to their own believers.

So they imagine it's all about something self-evidently real and
supremely important for everybody, and they imagine the only
alternatives are believing it exists, believing it doesn't and not
knowing either way.

When it's actually as irrelevant to everybody else as leprechauns are
to them.

Yet they imagine there is something wrong with us for not sharing the
beliefs at the centre of their very being.

And because they can't get their minds around this they are deeply
offended by any explanation of what it means to us - they "think"
we're actively (and arrogantly) dissing the most important thing in
the universe and their lives.

Which is the root of most of the acrimony that wouldn't even happen if
they had the sense to keep it inside their religion.

But they imagine it belongs everywhere.

"One man's religion is another's belly laugh" - Robert A. Heinlein
Brown Sugar
2013-09-29 21:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something? Certainly not atheists.
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
In what passes for the minds, we're arguing over the difference
between not believing the sun exists, and believing it doesn't.
We weren't arguing at all. I asked a question and you took exception to
it. Perhaps you were confusing me with someone else.
--
J
Christopher A. Lee
2013-09-29 23:52:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:59:23 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Why don't you learn some basic logic, imbecile?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Uncle Vic
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something? Certainly not atheists.
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
In what passes for the minds, we're arguing over the difference
between not believing the sun exists, and believing it doesn't.
We weren't arguing at all. I asked a question and you took exception to
it. Perhaps you were confusing me with someone else.
No, liar - you asked a loaded question that presumed we're something
we aren't.

Perhaps you should try showing some honesty and intelligence.
Brown Sugar
2013-09-30 07:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:59:23 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Why don't you learn some basic logic, imbecile?
More name calling. You mind isn't getting any stronger is it? You can't
"learn" logic any more than you can "learn" to hear.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Uncle Vic
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something? Certainly not atheists.
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
In what passes for the minds, we're arguing over the difference
between not believing the sun exists, and believing it doesn't.
We weren't arguing at all. I asked a question and you took exception to
it. Perhaps you were confusing me with someone else.
No, liar - you asked a loaded question
You are not qualified to determine that. It appears the real poster has
fled and you avoided every question.
--
J
SkyEyes
2013-10-02 08:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
More name calling. You mind isn't getting any stronger is it? You
can't "learn" logic any more than you can "learn" to hear.
Dear me. If it's true one can't learn logic, then why is taught at every
major university in the Western world? Logic dictates that you don't know
what you're talking about.
--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Brown Sugar
2013-09-29 21:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic beleive
in the none-existance.. HTH
--
J
Christopher A. Lee
2013-09-29 23:50:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Why can't you morons grasp that fact that atheists are outside your
religious paradigm, where its tenets including its god-BELIEF don't
even apply?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Idiot.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic beleive
in the none-existance.. HTH
No, liar - most of us have nothing to be agnostic about because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF they haven't the commonsense
and courtesy to keep inside their religion..

Neither do we have anything to believe doesn't exist because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF we don't happen to share.

Why are so many theists so stupid they can't understand its sheer
irrelevance outside their religion?
Les
2013-09-30 06:56:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:50:53 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Why can't you morons grasp that fact that atheists are outside your
religious paradigm, where its tenets including its god-BELIEF don't
even apply?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Idiot.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic beleive
in the none-existance.. HTH
No, liar - most of us have nothing to be agnostic about because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF they haven't the commonsense
and courtesy to keep inside their religion..
Neither do we have anything to believe doesn't exist because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF we don't happen to share.
Why are so many theists so stupid they can't understand its sheer
irrelevance outside their religion?
Just a hobby or pastime that they take far too seriously

"All things in moderation"
- Aristotle?
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - Europe's top Destination 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23930147

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010
Dakota
2013-09-30 06:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:50:53 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Why can't you morons grasp that fact that atheists are outside your
religious paradigm, where its tenets including its god-BELIEF don't
even apply?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Idiot.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic beleive
in the none-existance.. HTH
No, liar - most of us have nothing to be agnostic about because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF they haven't the commonsense
and courtesy to keep inside their religion..
Neither do we have anything to believe doesn't exist because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF we don't happen to share.
Why are so many theists so stupid they can't understand its sheer
irrelevance outside their religion?
Just a hobby or pastime that they take far too seriously
"All things in moderation"
- Aristotle?
Including moderation.
%
2013-09-30 07:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:50:53 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that
the belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief,
hence the word, "belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence
of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the
non-existence of something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Why can't you morons grasp that fact that atheists are outside your
religious paradigm, where its tenets including its god-BELIEF don't
even apply?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Idiot.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you
simply not believe in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic
beleive in the none-existance.. HTH
No, liar - most of us have nothing to be agnostic about because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF they haven't the commonsense
and courtesy to keep inside their religion..
Neither do we have anything to believe doesn't exist because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF we don't happen to share.
Why are so many theists so stupid they can't understand its sheer
irrelevance outside their religion?
Just a hobby or pastime that they take far too seriously
"All things in moderation"
- Aristotle?
its not a failure in not understanding the atheist ,
its the sheer panic observed when atheism gets challenged
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:12:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:03:49 -0700, "%" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
.
Post by %
Post by Les
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:50:53 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that
the belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief,
hence the word, "belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence
of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the
non-existence of something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Why can't you morons grasp that fact that atheists are outside your
religious paradigm, where its tenets including its god-BELIEF don't
even apply?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Idiot.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you
simply not believe in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic
beleive in the none-existance.. HTH
No, liar - most of us have nothing to be agnostic about because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF they haven't the commonsense
and courtesy to keep inside their religion..
Neither do we have anything to believe doesn't exist because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF we don't happen to share.
Why are so many theists so stupid they can't understand its sheer
irrelevance outside their religion?
Just a hobby or pastime that they take far too seriously
"All things in moderation"
- Aristotle?
its not a failure in not understanding the atheist ,
its the sheer panic observed when atheism gets challenged
And strong atheism gets challenged every time anyone considers anything more
than the one possibility that strong atheists put their own faith in.
Brown Sugar
2013-09-30 07:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Why can't you morons
More name calling. Are you planning on any questions any time soon?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Idiot.
No proof offered; your claim fails.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic beleive
in the none-existance.. HTH
No, liar - most of us have nothing to be agnostic about because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF
More name calling and shouting because you obviously beleive that adds
wuality to your argument. How amusing. Now pay attention. You might
learn something. Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge of the existance
of any god or gods. Non-agnostic athiesm is about beleife that there is
no theism, god or gods of any kind, and not just the hebrew ones. Write
it out in crayon if that helps.
--
J
%
2013-09-30 07:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that
the belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief,
hence the word, "belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence
of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the
non-existence of something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Why can't you morons
More name calling. Are you planning on any questions any time soon?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Idiot.
No proof offered; your claim fails.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you
simply not believe in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic
beleive in the none-existance.. HTH
No, liar - most of us have nothing to be agnostic about because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF
More name calling and shouting because you obviously beleive that adds
wuality to your argument. How amusing. Now pay attention. You might
learn something. Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge of the
existance of any god or gods. Non-agnostic athiesm is about beleife
that there is no theism, god or gods of any kind, and not just the
hebrew ones. Write it out in crayon if that helps.
i'm sorry and i'm sure its a typo but , " wuality " . LOL , oh and , "
beleife " too
Brown Sugar
2013-09-30 13:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that
the belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief,
hence the word, "belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence
of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the
non-existence of something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Why can't you morons
More name calling. Are you planning on any questions any time soon?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Idiot.
No proof offered; your claim fails.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you
simply not believe in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic
beleive in the none-existance.. HTH
No, liar - most of us have nothing to be agnostic about because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF
More name calling and shouting because you obviously beleive that adds
wuality to your argument. How amusing. Now pay attention. You might
learn something. Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge of the
existance of any god or gods. Non-agnostic athiesm is about beleife
that there is no theism, god or gods of any kind, and not just the
hebrew ones. Write it out in crayon if that helps.
i'm sorry and i'm sure its a typo but , " wuality " . LOL , oh and , "
beleife " too
it's amazing the damage spell checkers cause. :)
--
J
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:15:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:50:53 -0700, Christopher A. Lee <***@optonline.net>
wrote:
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Yes, hence my commont. Do you honestly (heh) not understand that the
belief of the nonexistence in something is still belief, hence the word,
"belief" in the term "beleif in the nonexistence of"?
Who do you think you are describing, who believes in the non-existence of
something?
Those who beleive that there is not god.
Why can't you morons grasp that fact that atheists are outside your
religious paradigm, where its tenets including its god-BELIEF don't
even apply?
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Certainly not atheists.
Agnostic or non-agnostic athiest?
Idiot.
This says it so clearly that even you should be able to finally comprehend:
_________________________________________________________
Q: What's the difference between a "weak atheist" and a "strong atheist"?

A: A weak atheist is one in whom no god-belief is present. A weak atheist makes
no claims about the general existence of a god or gods, he or she simply has no
belief in any them.

A strong atheist, on the other hand, not only has no god-belief, but also makes
a positive assertion that in fact there are no gods at all.

Weak atheism is an absence of belief. Strong atheism is an active belief.
. . .
http://www.atheistfaq.com/2008/02/whats-difference-between-weak-atheist.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
To an atheist, a god is in the same category as leprechauns. So do you
believe in the non-existence of leprechauns? Or do you simply not believe
in them?
Agnostic athiests do not beleive in the existance, none-agnostic beleive
in the none-existance.. HTH
No, liar -
Yes moron. The question is WHY? are you so desperate to try to cling to the
idea that there are no strong atheists? Why are you???
Post by Christopher A. Lee
most of us have nothing to be agnostic about because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF they haven't the commonsense
and courtesy to keep inside their religion..
Neither do we have anything to believe doesn't exist because IT IS
MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF we don't happen to share.
How do you want people to think that prevents you from believing any other
peoples' beliefs are wrong then? Or do you really want people to believe you
don't think anyone's beliefs are wrong?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why are so many theists so stupid they can't understand its sheer
irrelevance outside their religion?
None of them are, and it's impressive that you think any of them are.
However, knowing people with different beliefs don't believe you doesn't stop
you from saying whatever you feel like, so why do you think it should prevent
people who consider the possibility of God's existence? Or even the people who
are convinced that he does exist? I'll answer for you: You have no idea.
d***@.
2013-09-30 19:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Vic
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns?
On this planet I do. Why don't you?
Smiler
2013-10-01 00:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Uncle Vic
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns?
On this planet I do.
You have that belief because you cannot think realistically about the
possibility that leprechauns exist.
Post by d***@.
Why don't you?
Because the belief, either way, is stupid. I just don't concern myself
with mythical beings, your supposed god character included.
--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:12:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 01:50:04 +0100, Smiler <***@JoeKing.com> wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Uncle Vic
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns?
On this planet I do.
You have that belief because you cannot think realistically about the
possibility that leprechauns exist.
Sure I can. And if they DID then I feel confident that their existence would
be common knowledge, that they would probably want rights of some sort, that
there would be discussions about whether or not they should be thought of like
humans, that it would be well known how close to humans they are, that there
would be medical professionals who specialise in them, etc...
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Why don't you?
Because the belief, either way, is stupid. I just don't concern myself
with mythical beings, your supposed god character included.
You suppose he's mythical because you can't think about the possibility of
his existence in any realisitic way(s). Just for fun, why don't you try to tell
us how you think things would be different if God did exist, since you
apparently think he does not.
Smiler
2013-10-02 23:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
.
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Uncle Vic
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns?
On this planet I do.
You have that belief because you cannot think realistically about the
possibility that leprechauns exist.
Sure I can. And if they DID then I feel confident that their existence would
be common knowledge, that they would probably want rights of some sort,
that there would be discussions about whether or not they should be
thought of like humans, that it would be well known how close to humans
they are, that there would be medical professionals who specialise in
them, etc...
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Why don't you?
Because the belief, either way, is stupid. I just don't concern myself
with mythical beings, your supposed god character included.
You suppose he's mythical because you can't think about the possibility of
his existence in any realisitic way(s). Just for fun, why don't you try to
tell us how you think things would be different if God did exist, since
you apparently think he does not.
First provide evidence for your supposed god character's existence.
If it does exist then I feel confident that its existence would be common
knowledge, but that's not the case. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are
not evidence. Without evidence, why should I believe in it?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
d***@.
2013-10-04 20:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
.
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Uncle Vic
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns?
On this planet I do.
You have that belief because you cannot think realistically about the
possibility that leprechauns exist.
Sure I can. And if they DID then I feel confident that their existence would
be common knowledge, that they would probably want rights of some sort,
that there would be discussions about whether or not they should be
thought of like humans, that it would be well known how close to humans
they are, that there would be medical professionals who specialise in
them, etc...
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Why don't you?
Because the belief, either way, is stupid. I just don't concern myself
with mythical beings, your supposed god character included.
You suppose he's mythical because you can't think about the possibility of
his existence in any realisitic way(s). Just for fun, why don't you try to
tell us how you think things would be different if God did exist, since
you apparently think he does not.
First provide evidence for your supposed god character's existence.
If it does exist then I feel confident that its existence would be common
knowledge, but that's not the case. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are
not evidence. Without evidence, why should I believe in it?
You're lucky that nothing in your life makes it seem that some type of force
could be having an influence on how things happen in your life or anyone you've
ever heard of. I envy you on that big time. BUT! The way evolution happened is
ONE thing everyone knows about that suggests some type of force had influence on
it. If there were lots of examples of species giving birth to different species
as would have to have happened millions if not billions of times if evolution
happened only by chance, then it would seem much more likely that evolution
happened only by chance. But since there are few or no examples of species
giving birth to different species instead of at least hundreds of thousands if
not millions as there should be, THAT IS evidence that evolution did NOT happen
only by chance even though you can't appreciate it. You can't but I can. There's
more, but if you can't appreciate that which is probably as obvious as any then
you're just not mentally up to the "task" apparently. Some things that are easy
for some people, are impossible for others.
Smiler
2013-10-04 22:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
wrote: .
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Uncle Vic
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns?
On this planet I do.
You have that belief because you cannot think realistically about the
possibility that leprechauns exist.
Sure I can. And if they DID then I feel confident that their existence would
be common knowledge, that they would probably want rights of some sort,
that there would be discussions about whether or not they should be
thought of like humans, that it would be well known how close to humans
they are, that there would be medical professionals who specialise in
them, etc...
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Why don't you?
Because the belief, either way, is stupid. I just don't concern myself
with mythical beings, your supposed god character included.
You suppose he's mythical because you can't think about the possibility of
his existence in any realisitic way(s). Just for fun, why don't you try
to tell us how you think things would be different if God did exist,
since you apparently think he does not.
First provide evidence for your supposed god character's existence. If it
does exist then I feel confident that its existence would be common
knowledge, but that's not the case. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books
are not evidence. Without evidence, why should I believe in it?
You're lucky that nothing in your life makes it seem that some type of force
could be having an influence on how things happen in your life or anyone
you've ever heard of. I envy you on that big time. BUT! The way evolution
happened is ONE thing everyone knows about that suggests some type of
force had influence on it. If there were lots of examples of species
giving birth to different species as would have to have happened millions
if not billions of times if evolution happened only by chance, then it
would seem much more likely that evolution happened only by chance. But
since there are few or no examples of species giving birth to different
species instead of at least hundreds of thousands if not millions as there
should be, THAT IS evidence that evolution did NOT happen only by chance
even though you can't appreciate it. You can't but I can. There's more,
but if you can't appreciate that which is probably as obvious as any then
you're just not mentally up to the "task" apparently. Some things that are
easy for some people, are impossible for others.
Thanks for the admission that you have no evidence.
Without evidence, why should I, or anyone else, believe you?
I have a lovely bridge for sale and if you order and pay for it by the end
of the week, you can have a discount of 50% off the full price of £1
million. A snip at £500,000!
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
d***@.
2013-10-07 22:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
wrote: .
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Uncle Vic
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns?
On this planet I do.
You have that belief because you cannot think realistically about the
possibility that leprechauns exist.
Sure I can. And if they DID then I feel confident that their existence would
be common knowledge, that they would probably want rights of some sort,
that there would be discussions about whether or not they should be
thought of like humans, that it would be well known how close to humans
they are, that there would be medical professionals who specialise in
them, etc...
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Why don't you?
Because the belief, either way, is stupid. I just don't concern myself
with mythical beings, your supposed god character included.
You suppose he's mythical because you can't think about the possibility of
his existence in any realisitic way(s). Just for fun, why don't you try
to tell us how you think things would be different if God did exist,
since you apparently think he does not.
First provide evidence for your supposed god character's existence. If it
does exist then I feel confident that its existence would be common
knowledge, but that's not the case. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books
are not evidence. Without evidence, why should I believe in it?
You're lucky that nothing in your life makes it seem that some type of force
could be having an influence on how things happen in your life or anyone
you've ever heard of. I envy you on that big time. BUT! The way evolution
happened is ONE thing everyone knows about that suggests some type of
force had influence on it. If there were lots of examples of species
giving birth to different species as would have to have happened millions
if not billions of times if evolution happened only by chance, then it
would seem much more likely that evolution happened only by chance. But
since there are few or no examples of species giving birth to different
species instead of at least hundreds of thousands if not millions as there
should be, THAT IS evidence that evolution did NOT happen only by chance
even though you can't appreciate it. You can't but I can. There's more,
but if you can't appreciate that which is probably as obvious as any then
you're just not mentally up to the "task" apparently. Some things that are
easy for some people, are impossible for others.
Thanks for the admission that you
WE!
Post by Smiler
have no evidence.
Without evidence, why should I, or anyone else, believe you?
Without evidence why should I or anyone else believe that millions of
different species just happened to give birth to different species in the past,
though they don't seem to be doing it much any more?
Post by Smiler
I have a lovely bridge for sale and if you order and pay for it by the end
of the week, you can have a discount of 50% off the full price of £1
million. A snip at £500,000!
Do you have millions of species of animals just happening to give birth to
different species too? Tell me about them instead of lying to me about a bridge
you don't have. Go:

(You lose.)
Smiler
2013-10-08 23:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
wrote: .
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Post by Uncle Vic
do you believe in the non-existence of leprechauns?
On this planet I do.
You have that belief because you cannot think realistically about the
possibility that leprechauns exist.
Sure I can. And if they DID then I feel confident that their
existence would
be common knowledge, that they would probably want rights of some
sort, that there would be discussions about whether or not they
should be thought of like humans, that it would be well known how
close to humans they are, that there would be medical professionals
who specialise in them, etc...
Post by Smiler
Post by d***@.
Why don't you?
Because the belief, either way, is stupid. I just don't concern
myself with mythical beings, your supposed god character included.
You suppose he's mythical because you can't think about the possibility of
his existence in any realisitic way(s). Just for fun, why don't you
try to tell us how you think things would be different if God did
exist, since you apparently think he does not.
First provide evidence for your supposed god character's existence. If
it does exist then I feel confident that its existence would be common
knowledge, but that's not the case. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books
are not evidence. Without evidence, why should I believe in it?
You're lucky that nothing in your life makes it seem that some type of force
could be having an influence on how things happen in your life or
anyone you've ever heard of. I envy you on that big time. BUT! The way
evolution happened is ONE thing everyone knows about that suggests some
type of force had influence on it. If there were lots of examples of
species giving birth to different species as would have to have
happened millions if not billions of times if evolution happened only
by chance, then it would seem much more likely that evolution happened
only by chance. But since there are few or no examples of species
giving birth to different species instead of at least hundreds of
thousands if not millions as there should be, THAT IS evidence that
evolution did NOT happen only by chance even though you can't
appreciate it. You can't but I can. There's more, but if you can't
appreciate that which is probably as obvious as any then you're just
not mentally up to the "task" apparently. Some things that are easy for
some people, are impossible for others.
Thanks for the admission that you
WE!
Post by Smiler
have no evidence.
Without evidence, why should I, or anyone else, believe you?
Without evidence why should I or anyone else believe that millions of
different species just happened to give birth to different species in the
past, though they don't seem to be doing it much any more?
Have you checked _every_ birth in _every_ species for the last 4 billion
years?
Post by d***@.
Post by Smiler
I have a lovely bridge for sale and if you order and pay for it by the
end of the week, you can have a discount of 50% off the full price of £1
million. A snip at £500,000!
Do you have millions of species of animals just happening to give birth
to different species too? Tell me about them instead of lying to me about
a bridge you don't have.
I have evidence that I have that bridge. I'll show it to you as soon as
you show me evidence for your supposed god character.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
d***@.
2013-09-30 19:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:06:46 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Hardly, moron -
No you are the moron, and you are consistently the moron about this topic.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
do you honestly (heh) not understand the difference
between the absence of a particular belief
Which is weak atheism.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
and having a specific
opposite belief?
Which is strong atheism. I know I've pointed that out for you a number of
times and it seems like for a number of years. You cling to this moronism. The
question is WHY?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you morons imagine you arrogantly get to tell us what our POV
is, getting it rudely and stupidly wrong because the very presumptions
you use don't even apply outside your religion?
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You really should try to FINALLY learn the distinction which you should have
already known for years. It is THE distinction and isn't a belief of any
particular religion. You should try to finally learn that too.
Jeanne Douglas
2013-09-29 03:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Brown Sugar
2013-09-29 08:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
--
J
Christopher A. Lee
2013-09-29 08:21:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:01:52 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
No, moron.
Brown Sugar
2013-09-29 11:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:01:52 +0100, Brown Sugar
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
No, moron.
More name calling. Your mind is weak, and my answer is correct.
--
J
Jeanne Douglas
2013-09-29 09:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Name one.
--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Brown Sugar
2013-09-29 11:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Name one.
Why?
--
J
d***@.
2013-09-30 19:30:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:03:17 +0100, Brown Sugar <***@softbrownsugar.net>
wrote:
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Name one.
Why?
So the attempt at denial can begin. Why the shame, is my biggest question.
If they believe God doesn't exist they should be more proud than ashamed, or
they should move on to a different position that they're not ashamed of.
Brown Sugar
2013-09-30 20:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Name one.
Why?
So the attempt at denial can begin. Why the shame, is my biggest question.
If they believe God doesn't exist they should be more proud than ashamed, or
they should move on to a different position that they're not ashamed of.
I know a few personally but mentioning their names is pointless as the
person who asked is unlikely to know them and besides, my friends might
not want to be identified.
--
J
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:13:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:39:14 +0100, Brown Sugar <***@softbrownsugar.net>
wrote:
.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Name one.
Why?
So the attempt at denial can begin. Why the shame, is my biggest question.
If they believe God doesn't exist they should be more proud than ashamed, or
they should move on to a different position that they're not ashamed of.
I know a few personally but mentioning their names is pointless as the
person who asked is unlikely to know them and besides, my friends might
not want to be identified.
Maybe not. The ones I referred to knew I was going to make note of their
"admission" because I told them in advance when I asked about it.
d***@.
2013-09-30 19:30:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 02:06:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Name one.
I've encountered a number of people who clearly appear to be strong atheists
and the majority of them seem to be ashamed of the faith that's required in
order to be one. It doesn't mean that they're not one. It just means that
they're ashamed of every bit of whatever faith they have that God does not
exist. Why some/most people are ashamed of it has been a question I've had for
years...ever since I first learned about it. However! I did make a list of the
small percentage of people I've encountered who appear to be strong atheists and
are not ashamed of their own faith:

"I am no more "ashamed" of my disbelief in gods than I would
be in my disbelief of any claim someone might make (without
evidence) that they own the Brooklyn Bridge." - ***@hotmail.com

"Shit happens without the deliberate aid or influence of beings
superior to humans. Let me get one thing out of the way then,
I have FAITH in that" - ***@zappo.com

"i happily admit to faith in the lack of a creator of the
type who judges people's morality and so on... i'll be
glad to." - marques de sade

"I have faith in my conviction that Atheism is right."
- Peter van Velzen

"I have confidence in the hypothesis that there was
no "creation" (cosmic origination) and no agent
responsible for it. you call that my faith, and i
am happy to affirm that this is my position, yes."
-- nocTifer
Uncle Vic
2013-09-29 14:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a
form of belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Ah, you must have looked in the dictionary. Webster's definition of
"atheist" is incorrect.

"Believing there is no god" pre-supposes such god's existence, which
invokes the logical fallacy "circulum in demonstrando". Look it up some
time.
--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
Christopher A. Lee
2013-09-29 15:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a
form of belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Ah, you must have looked in the dictionary. Webster's definition of
"atheist" is incorrect.
"Believing there is no god" pre-supposes such god's existence, which
invokes the logical fallacy "circulum in demonstrando". Look it up some
time.
There are two families if definitions, one of which actually describes
correctly as people who don't believe in any god or gods.

But even where dictionaries give both, stupid theists imagine they get
to decide which one to use, instead of doing what thinking people do,
let the context decide it - and in this case the context is what our
POV actually is.

They lose all commonsense when it comes to their religion, because
that's how they treat other definitions.

Eg it would never occur to them to insist that the friendly, purring
animal curled up next to me is a multi-hulled boat even though they
are both cats.

And it never seems to occur to them just how arrogantly nasty it is to
tell us what our POV "really" is and then turn even nastier when they
are corrected.
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:13:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:25:11 -0700, Christopher A. Lee <***@optonline.net>
wrote:
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a
form of belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Ah, you must have looked in the dictionary. Webster's definition of
"atheist" is incorrect.
"Believing there is no god" pre-supposes such god's existence, which
invokes the logical fallacy "circulum in demonstrando". Look it up some
time.
There are two families if definitions, one of which actually describes
correctly as people who don't believe in any god or gods.
But even where dictionaries give both, stupid theists imagine they get
to decide which one to use, instead of doing what thinking people do,
let the context decide it - and in this case the context is what our
POV actually is.
If you consider the possibility that God does exist but criticise other
people for doing the same thing or believing he does, it's extremely stupid of
you. So if people get the idea that you believe God doesn't exist when you
criticise them for not believing that, then they're just not comprehending how
stupid you are apparently.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They lose all commonsense when it comes to their religion, because
that's how they treat other definitions.
Eg it would never occur to them to insist that the friendly, purring
animal curled up next to me is a multi-hulled boat even though they
are both cats.
And it never seems to occur to them just how arrogantly nasty it is to
tell us what our POV "really" is and then turn even nastier when they
are corrected.
You can't even comprehend the distinction between different types of
atheism, which is a starting line you have never been able to get to. You STILL
can't comprehend the basics of what you think you're trying to talk about, and
maybe you never will be able to.
Brown Sugar
2013-09-29 22:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a
form of belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Ah, you must have looked in the dictionary. Webster's definition of
"atheist" is incorrect.
Not at all. I encountered the term by asking some who reffered to
themselves as non-agnostic athiests about it. It makes sense to me and
is quite logical. I am suprised it is an any dictionary other than an
urban one.
Post by Uncle Vic
"Believing there is no god" pre-supposes such god's existence, which
invokes the logical fallacy "circulum in demonstrando". Look it up some
time.
I'm familiar with that intepretation and I don't agree with it. However
we are all entitled to out opinions. I am looking for an urban term for
my POV which is quite close the the agnostic athiest term but with an
additional component. That is, don;e believe in any god, although I
can't be certain BUT I don't care either way. :)
--
J
walksalone
2013-09-29 22:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Brown Sugar <***@softbrownsugar.net> wrote in news:l2a89a$ari$1
@news.albasani.net:

Followup seet.
snip
Post by Brown Sugar
I'm familiar with that intepretation and I don't agree with it. However
we are all entitled to out opinions. I am looking for an urban term for
my POV which is quite close the the agnostic athiest term but with an
additional component. That is, don;e believe in any god, although I
can't be certain BUT I don't care either way. :)
apatheist.
HTH

HAND & Hasty bannans to one & all in the groups from the headers.
Including the one this was posted from. alt.religion.christian

walksalone who has some doubt but what Chris is correct.
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a
form of belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Who believes there is no god?
Non-agnostic athiests.
Ah, you must have looked in the dictionary. Webster's definition of
"atheist" is incorrect.
LOL!!!
Post by Uncle Vic
"Believing there is no god" pre-supposes such god's existence
Try to provide some reason to believe you could possibly be correct about
that. Go:
d***@.
2013-09-30 19:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Yup. Notice that some people don't like what it means to be a strong atheist
for some reason, and seem to hate it to the point of being in denial about the
truth for years. I know I've pointed out the distinction for them more than once
in the past, over a period of however many years. It's one thing to be ignorant
up to a point in your life, but it's another and lamer thing to still be
ignorant and in denial about it even after people have pointed it out to you
more than once.
Brown Sugar
2013-09-30 20:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Yup. Notice that some people don't like what it means to be a strong atheist
for some reason, and seem to hate it to the point of being in denial about the
truth for years. I know I've pointed out the distinction for them more than once
in the past, over a period of however many years. It's one thing to be ignorant
up to a point in your life, but it's another and lamer thing to still be
ignorant and in denial about it even after people have pointed it out to you
more than once.
One person was claiming that a beleive in the none existance of god or
gods requires a pre-requisite belief. That makes no sense to me.
--
J
d***@.
2013-10-02 19:11:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:41:12 +0100, Brown Sugar <***@softbrownsugar.net>
wrote:
.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by d***@.
Post by Brown Sugar
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency. Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
A belief that there is no god? perhaps?
Yup. Notice that some people don't like what it means to be a strong atheist
for some reason, and seem to hate it to the point of being in denial about the
truth for years. I know I've pointed out the distinction for them more than once
in the past, over a period of however many years. It's one thing to be ignorant
up to a point in your life, but it's another and lamer thing to still be
ignorant and in denial about it even after people have pointed it out to you
more than once.
One person was claiming that a beleive in the none existance of god or
gods requires a pre-requisite belief. That makes no sense to me.
I feel quite certain they can't explain what they think they're trying to
talk about. Remember these are people that have been discussing this topic for
years and STILL can't comprehend the basic distinction between weak and strong
atheism. They are people who apparently can't learn anything that works against
what they WANT to believe. They can't get as "far" as the starting line, yet
enjoy thinking of themselves as some sort of authorities.
d***@.
2013-09-30 19:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by d***@.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
Well, so much for coherency.
Do you think you could learn to develop any?
Post by Uncle Vic
Can you explain how disbelief is a form of
belief?
Disbelief unfortunately imo can mean having no belief which applies to weak
atheism, but it also means to believe something is untrue which is a form of
belief and applies to strong atheism. The amount of faith a person has that God
does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist the person is or is not.
Loading...