God’s little good vs evil games
27 December 2006 by Stardust
This post is inspired by recent disagreements (to put it mildly) with fundie relatives who choose to believe in a perfect, all-loving god. None of them, and no xian I have ever encountered have an adequate explanation as to where evil in the world came from, except to say that it came from god-given free will, human nature, disobedience of humans to follow the rules laid down by the great sky daddy and a host of other reasons they have to choose from in their mental databases of fantasy. But, at the same time they say that their god created all things and saw that they were good. So, where did evil come from if this god only created good?
If we examine closely what the Bible says, evil was instigated and started by god and his “who has the bigger dick” games in heaven and giving his celestial counterparts (angels, including Lucifer) the choice of joining him or rebelling and fighting to overthrow him. Then later god makes a little game of keep-away-from-evil in the Garden of Eden after creating his ignorant little human pets,and then punishes them and all of the human race for merely using their free choice option.
In both stories of the fall of Satan, and the fall of Adam and Eve, this god of xian mythology gives his creatures a choice even though he knows that he can only accept one. If he wanted his creatures to have free will, and he is an all-good god, why not have multiple good choices instead of bringing evil into it? Here were beings, freshly created, who supposedly didn’t know anything yet, but god put bad in their brains. If this god had wanted obedient little puppies, he shouldn’t have created evil choices for his creations to choose from in the first place.
I have brought this subject of the origins of evil up to many xians and the question really agitates them when trying to explain it to me. They come back with “god gave us free will”…and I counter with “and free will to choose what?” They say , “to choose between good and evil”…and I say, “where did the evil come from?”…they say “Satan”…and I say…”WHERE DID SATAN COME FROM?” and they say “Satan was one of god’s fallen angels.” I then ask, “how did Satan fall?” They say, “he chose evil”…I then ask “where did the evil come from that Satan chose?”….Using their logic…it all goes back to GOD, and xians hate pinning responsibility for evilness on their god. Yet, that is where it all leads back to according to their own mythology book.
They get quite flustered with this debate and come quite close to telling me to just go to hell. 
27 December 2006, on 7:30 pm
The Problem of Evil ™ pretty much skewers the religious notion of an all loving, all good God, and smashed any last vestiges of faith I might have ever had in my past. The same was true for British historian Arnold Toynbee, whose recollections I read wherein he talks about everything he likes about each of the world religions, and the things he finds objectionable in each of them and why he can’t bring himself to embrace any of them. My sentiments might be different now reading Toynbee afresh, but at the time it was very strangely wonderful to read the words of another human being, living on a small Island an ocean away from me, of an earlier Generation, yet so accurately matching my own thoughts at the time it was like holding a flawless mirror up to them.
I remember also, upon hearing about the philosophical postulate that God must be 1) all Good 2) all knowing 3) all powerful == the first thing I thought was, if this being were all powerful, why would he give a sh*t about the first two, and couldn’t he just fool all the lesser beings into believing 1 and 2 if he wanted to?
Toynbee concluded that if God is anything, God is Love–that he could live with; but he could not accept the idea of that God also being all powerful or all knowing. Of course, when you’re in love, you feel on top of the world, feel as though love really can conquer all. But then reality sets in, you recognize that passion alone is not synonymous with love; your love can falter, even fail…it can be cruelly unrequited, rebuffed…you realize it too is only human, all too human. Still wonderful, yes, but fragile and fleeting…thus all the more precious, really.
…so
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life…
(…the songs of Monty Python have always been more truly inspirational to me than any religious hymn ever written)
27 December 2006, on 7:38 pm
“If he wanted his creatures to have free will, and he is an all-good god, why not have multiple good choices instead of bringing evil into it?”
Hey, this is interesting. I’ve never thought of this before, but you’re right. I might ask my kids, “would you like to wear a diaper or sit on the potty?” but I never say, “would you like to kiss your brother or throw a block at him?”
27 December 2006, on 7:42 pm
I was going to say, I practiced Orthodox Judaism for awhile and at least they are internally consistent, believing that their god created both good and evil.
The xians CAN’T admit to this, though, because otherwise how could they sustain their assertion that you must accept jesus to go to heaven? After all, the reason you need Jesus is because their god is unable to be around sin. So if you have a god who created sin…well..how’s that going to work?
So..I wouldn’t expect them to ever admit to it. They’ll lose on a more important theological question if they do.
27 December 2006, on 8:21 pm
Stardust
I too have had this same type of conversation with religious folks. It leaves them completely befuddled. I learned pretty quick that as a child I should not question such things and should just trust and have faith in those who obviously knew more than I did. Blah Blah Blah.
It still bothers me that so few people actually question their own beliefs. They believe the most inane and fantastic of all unbelievable ideas and yet fight for their rights to have such beliefs. All the while never questioning what those beliefs really are and where those beliefs came from. I’m a firm believer in the saying “If you hang out with crazy people they will make you crazy too”.
With that said that is how I perceive religion. And that is how I think of the god meme. It’s a type of infection. It takes a good amount of training to idetify it and immunize ourselves from it. All the while having a bit of compassion for those still infected and being their contact with the truthful rational side of life.
27 December 2006, on 10:20 pm
As much as I like infinite regression in fractals, I can find no place for it in any logical argument. What Stardust describes is exactly what happens in the mind of a believer when confronted with reasonable, rational questions, such as a child would ask.
27 December 2006, on 10:44 pm
I practiced Orthodox Judaism for awhile and at least they are internally consistent, believing that their god created both good and evil.
MomSquared – If the Orthodox Jews admit that their god created both good and evil, for what purpose is it believed that evil would be created for? Is that question ever answered in the Jewish Orthodox faith?
27 December 2006, on 11:58 pm
Here are a few links, stardust
http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=238&o=140561
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/satan.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8053_1.html
Why Evil?
No original sin. Most believe God created Satan as evil inclination, a tendency that lies within everyone. People also have awareness of and inclination toward goodness. Thus, God provides free will as a test of obedience and faith. (From MomSquared: in other words, god is an asshole who lets people suffer so that he can be glorified).
28 December 2006, on 12:12 am
Not too far OT:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/12/popular-delusions-v.html
Imagine that allowing a child (even an atheist child!) to believe in Santa might not be a bad thing…
Naomi (I had the link and needed to drop it before I could read the post–I’ll be back)
28 December 2006, on 12:35 am
I didn’t know about this book until yesterday, so I couldn’t ask “Santa Claus” for it, as he’s already done this year. I suppose I’ll have to spend my own money…
Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief by Lewis Wolper (5 out of 5 stars on ScienceDaily Books; link is below quote)
What and why we believe
It seems quirky, claiming to “imagine six impossible things” as Alice’s White Queen did. Before breakfast or at any time. Wolpert shows, however, that most of us are firmly convinced of many things that aren’t so: gods, unlikely events, strange medical practices – the list seems almost endless. The lack of tangible evidence supporting or even evidence countering, those things we have faith in seems to have little impact on our credulity. In a dozen illuminating chapters, this award-winning biologist examines this almost inexplicable facet of our lives. Written with precision and deep insight, Wolpert demonstrates his command of how belief is a fundamental aspect of our society. Why do we believe the things we do?
As a biologist, Wolpert naturally turns to our evolutionary roots for clues to the origins of belief. That which sets us apart from the other animals – our oversized brain, our use of tools, and our ability to use language – as the indicators. The brain’s capacity to store, retrieve and assemble information is tied to our abilities in technology and language. For Wolpert, the prime element is the making of tools. Making tools means envisioning the final product, and devising how to bring it about. Put more simply, understanding cause and effect – something even other primates have trouble with. From this beginning, he argues, come social relationships and a sense of values. Along the way, we also developed the idea of agency which we assigned to events or circumstances that were out of ordinary, everyday experience. If the process of flaking stone went wrong, why did that happen. The best-laid plans, etc.
From this beginning, Wolpert shows how the panoply of modern beliefs has come into our lives. The onset of conceiving an agency either began or enhanced the mind’s “belief engine”. The belief engine demands an identifiable cause for circumstances. When that’s not readily apparent, we extend our belief to things we must imagine. These explanations can, and are, passed around the community, establishing both a bond among its members and reinforcing the interpretation. Once the idea gains prominence, it resists challenge and is difficult to overturn. Religion, of course, is the ultimate organised form of belief, often touted as society’s best glue. Wolpert accepts this situation without rancour, even admitting his disturbed son’s conversion to a fundamentalist Christian sect has improved the boy’s behaviour. That given, Wolpert cannot excuse rigid adherence to dogmas that have no basis in reality. Science has disproven so many religious and other belief systems that he insists the wider society examine their beliefs more critically. There are other facets than family relations to consider.
Recent claims that religious folk, or even those with faith in such things as homeopathy or “crystal healing”, actually feel or live better may have statistical substance. Wolpert wants these claims investigated fully, since the early results have little validity. Part of how these practices seem effective lies within the brain’s dealings with the rest of the body. It is this aspect that suggests paths of study, since it ’s clear the objects or methods have no curative power in themselves. Many of the methods are accompanied by common-sense recommendations regarding diet and abandonment of harmful habits such as smoking or lack of exercise. Although Wolpert is even-handed in his approach to the many common delusions of our times, he clearly wishes their validity be openly investigated and the results aired.
Such an investigation, Wolpert concedes, will be [and has been] difficult to launch and sustain. Clearly, our minds, however powerful in certain talents, have a tendency to seek immediate answers. The validity of the cause need not be certain if an acceptable origin can be declared. We are willing to believe in ghosts or other paranormal phenomena simply because somebody forcefully declares them to be true. Similar views are firmly held about medical practices. As with other views of agency, we are uncomfortable with illness that we cannot understand. Any explanation, forcefully given with a promise of relief, finds easy acceptance. Hence, “alternative”, or in Wolpert’s Britain “complementary”, healing methods are widespread. Whether they are a form of “placebo” medicine, which appears to cure remains to be determined.
Wolpert’s book comes at a time when examining our beliefs seems more crucial than ever. We maintain ideas about ourselves, but it becomes too easy to project them to others. When more reasonable ideas are put forward, we must not be too ready to reject them. This book should provide a basis for people willing to apply reason and science to accepted dogmas. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf4/amazon_products_feed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&myOperation=CustomerReviews&ItemId=0393064492#review_1
When I go into town tomorrow, my first stop will be at a book store!
Naomi
28 December 2006, on 12:43 am
I was thinking about this, I came to a conclusion. Xians say gawd has a plan for us all, yet all evil is free will, which means it can be assumed that this person deviated from the plan.
That means free will is more powerful than gawd. This of course, means that gawd is not all powerful, which leads into a whole list of things.
28 December 2006, on 1:03 am
This is why I have no use for religion. As has been stated by others before, what is the point of having a brain that is capable of logical, rational thought when you have to suppress it just to accept an inconsistent, contradictory bunch of nonsense on faith? Some religious people have told me it’s all a metaphor and don’t think so literally about the world. But a metaphor that doesn’t explain anything and gets in the way of clear communication is useless, no matter how warm and fuzzy it might make you feel inside.
28 December 2006, on 1:33 am
MomSquared – Thanks for the links which can be added to the info that shows that this god of Abraham is just a dick.
28 December 2006, on 1:36 am
As has been stated by others before, what is the point of having a brain that is capable of logical, rational thought when you have to suppress it just to accept an inconsistent, contradictory bunch of nonsense on faith?
Chayanov, exactly!
28 December 2006, on 1:45 am
That means free will is more powerful than gawd. This of course, means that gawd is not all powerful, which leads into a whole list of things.
Matt, that is what my son and I were discussing earlier today. It seems that human will is more powerful than the will of gawd if he has to go through such theatrics as to go so far as creating and killing his own son/suiciding himself and bringing himself back to life and all that kind of violent bizarrness to gain attention (and that still doesn’t work and he still needs little illiterate messengers to spread his message/threat to believe or burn).
28 December 2006, on 2:14 am
I hope you’ll excuse a bit of pre-2007 rambling…or, maybe it’s just getting 2006 off my mental ledger?
I think the word “Tradition” applies; as in Judaism…to ALL religions, actually. [Tradition reminds me of 'Fiddler on the Roof’ (or, as I called it: “Fiddler off the Wall”)…as a longtime ‘Jobbing musician’, I sure got sick of playing those tunes!]
Way before I heard Dawkins talk about religion being child abuse, I had independently come to that particular conclusion. I know many of us at GifS discussed that somewhat recently.
Something else comes to my mind regarding the whole Fundie inability to look at beliefs the way we, as atheists and Freethinkers try to do…namely…Rationally and Scientifically…
Religions, in their ancient past…indeed, in their very inception…never conceived of the importance of approaching reality using Reason and/or Science. They HAD no science; and Reason was only sneaking into Man’s awareness, as far as we know, in the Greek world of ca. 500 BCE. Even then, it was only among the elite and educated. Cults, with their Mythologies imbedded with symbolism and mysticism ruled. later, over time, a few of them morphed into the Major Religions of today.
In my reading…the Ancient World was not greatly interested in actual literal facts, as we are in the modern world. Mythology was not supposed to be literal history. Nobody really cared about factuality! Of course, in over 2000 years or so, the symbolic mythological stories were gradually literalized, dogmatized, and in becoming ‘Tradition’, were forcibly passed down as literal facts…’infecting’ subsequent generations.
As a result, the notion of Faith, or irrational belief, with its unquestioned acceptance of the most innocuous, often completely dilusional notions, became the ‘Traditions’ we all know.
In other words…Mythology became Literal History…ready for primetime on the History Channel.
As Dawkins so articulately points out…for the young child, it’s almost necessary that absolute trust of whatever a parent tells it, the child believes. Dawkins gives the example that the child cannot afford to test out whether certain things are dangerous; but must accept the ‘teaching’ of the parent…etc. That opens a particularly nasty can of worms, of course, regarding brainwashing.
I guess my main point is [I think]…in ALL religions…FAITH in the TRADITION…is the modus operandi; one which most of us are personally, very familiar with in our own personal histories. Of course the Sacred Text is the handbook, or guide, to whatever is considered important to the particular ‘Tradition’.
Bottom-line: ‘Faith in the Tradition’ ALWAYS trumps Reason and Science!
Oh, Stardust…some random thoughts…
One thing about the ‘Literal’ Garden of Eden shtick that always bothered ME…
What the hell was the point of all the animals and insects? [Wha!...insects had 4 legs? Also, nothing much was mentioned about the fish...and absolutely nothing about the micro world, yada, yada.] Kinda like Sky Daddy saying: “Let’s see how weird I can get; thinking up, and magically making all these poor, dumb…even somewhat ’scary’…creatures. Well…they don’t scare ME, of course! Oh, that was neat; but what’s it going to eat? Hmmm…Watch out, Adam…it’s coming your way!”
Yes…speaking of Adam…
Of course, none of all the above…and the naming of them…satisfied the perhaps, ‘growing’ sexual appetite of Adam. in wondering what to do with his Tinkler [or Tingler?] thing. Did he, [when Gawd wasn't looking...Tee, hee]…perhaps…try sticking it into some of the animals?…Oh, of course, NOT the Lions, Tigers, and Bears…Oh my…NO! “What!…are you crazy?” [I just flashed on Sigfried and Roy!]
Yeah…to continue…when Eve was made from the magical rib operation on the completely bored Adam…OUCH!…when, and how did he approach Eve on the subject of what else he could do with it? [The tinkler, of course...pay attention!]
No Viagra was needed, of course! [That reminds me of the "Smiley Guy at the pool” commercial...you know the one?]
OK, sorry…once you get start on that track…you’re heading for dreaming up a Biblical Porn Site.
Hmmm…did I miss my calling?
OK, returning to Seriousness…
Like Stardust intimated…”The Game” was a set up…just waiting for the initial pinball launch…the pre-destined fatal mistaken ‘choice’…or ‘Sin’… to set off all the built in food chain killing, diseases, punishment, childbirth suffering, insanity…you know the rest.
All to fulfill the great Psychopath’s totally selfish, unquenchable blood thirst.
My conclusion in all this:
It’s Literalized Bronze Age nonsense, no matter what the “Tradition”!
OK, I’m through…but do I feel better?…
not really!
28 December 2006, on 2:15 am
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? — Epicurus (341 BC – 270 BC)
28 December 2006, on 2:56 am
One of these days I’m going to have an insight that no one else has had and thrill the world!
But in a way I’m glad I’m not the only one.
It’s a good arguement still.
Plus I love how we have “gawd given” free will, yet he threatens torture if we use it.
Seriously, the only difference between gawd and malevolent dictator is that the malevolent dictator is something that actually exists.
28 December 2006, on 3:23 pm
Hi there, I just wanted to come out of my lurking space and relay my appreciation for this site. I love reading all your articles and intelligent comments.
I was brought up without religion and seeing as I’m from a country that to my mind doesn’t put much emphasis on religion I remained faith-free my entire life. (I’m Dutch btw, just to clarify that) For a while now I’ve been more interested in religion/atheism mainly because of my interest in American politics. It is truly beyond me that there are people who believe in a mythical character and then try to base laws upon this belief. Then again I’m rather elitist and prefer the people I interact with to actually have a logical bone in their body.
Since I don’t know any religious people who believe as zealously as a lot people that have been described here I cannot really fathom the frustration some of you must feel daily.
Anyway, this was supposed to be a small comment to voice my appreciation but somehow turned into some rambling on my part. My apologies. And again..thank you.
28 December 2006, on 4:00 pm
Essentially we are talking about ‘theodicy’ here, but rather than go into it myself, allow me to redirect you to this rather good explanation on Wiki.
28 December 2006, on 4:04 pm
I love this explanation in particular:
Ingenious, huh?
28 December 2006, on 4:09 pm
Old Git, I hear this one a lot from fundie relatives:
28 December 2006, on 4:11 pm
God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify Himself (which, by definition, He alone is infinitely entitled to, without vanity). He allows evil to exist so that we will appreciate goodness all the more.
Old Git – and in his “divine wisdom” couldn’t he come up with a better and more peaceful and loving way to attain his “ultimate purpose” than to torment his creations with evilness?
28 December 2006, on 4:18 pm
Welcome Nathalie, Glad you came out of lurking in the shadows to comment.
Yes, the frustration we feel daily because of religion being in our faces every which way we turn is the reason for websites like this. We need a place to “vent” those frustrations. Feel free to jump in and comment any time you wish.
28 December 2006, on 4:45 pm
Stardust you said:
Then, logically, if evil is nor really evil, then good cannot really be good, since the one can exist only in comparison with the other.
Or as the Dao has it: the one gives birth to the two.
28 December 2006, on 4:50 pm
BTW, Just read that Richard Dawkins is an ordained minister, and can legally officiate in weddings etc. I read this is an old Guardian biography (I can provide the link if anyone wants it). More entertaining, however, is that anyone can become one, free, gratis and for nothing. All you have to do is visit here.
Apparently RD keeps his hanging in the toilet!
Think I’ll order one of those myself, LOL!
28 December 2006, on 4:53 pm
Stardust, That ordination’s just for you, because with it you are empowered to carry out the ‘instant absolvement of sins’, which means your fundie relatives will be queuing up for your services, LOL!
28 December 2006, on 4:54 pm
For completeness, here’s the link to the guardin’s bio on RD: click here
28 December 2006, on 4:55 pm
Sorry for typos!
28 December 2006, on 4:55 pm
FYI, I have an excellent book titled, Anti – Christ, which covers the origins and evolution of the concept of the DEVIL, by Bernard McGinn, ISBN 0-06-065282-9
28 December 2006, on 4:58 pm
What cracks me up is that fundies believe that what are considered character flaws in humans (such as jealousy, narcissism and quick-temper) are virtues in God.
28 December 2006, on 5:01 pm
And how about his order “Thou shall not kill”? Seem he suffers from amnesia too! LOL
28 December 2006, on 5:33 pm
I had this argument over the holiday break. *sigh* In the end, I was not so nice as you seem to be Stardust. I said, “I simply don’t believe in gods, yours or any others. If you want to believe in your god, fine, but I reserve the right to believe that you’re worshipping one sick twisted fuck of a bastard.”
28 December 2006, on 5:39 pm
Audrey,
I think it’s the other way round. One sick twisted fuck is worshipping a (non-existent)bastard!
28 December 2006, on 6:08 pm
Old Git, That would be HILARIOUS! I wonder if I should give my husband that idea because he would probably do it!
28 December 2006, on 6:10 pm
Audrey, I should probably just come out and say it like that because I end up getting “banned” from communicating with them even when I ask them nicely not to proseltyze to me via email, mail, etc.
28 December 2006, on 6:57 pm
Holy crap, Old Git…you’re better than Santa with all those little gems you sprinkled in the comment stream. You know…instant ordination, instant forgiveness of sin, with a Plenary indulgence; just like the Catholics!
I followed the links; and I must say, I DO like the “Ministry in a Box” item…Yikes, with a Doctor of Divinity Degree, no less! All for 139 US smackers!
I wonder if I could perform a legitimate marriage for my partner and me. Hmmm…
Hey, if people like Little Richard, Rosie Grier [Ex-NFL athlete]…and most impressive of all…Richard Dawkins…can have minister added after a slash…and have a framed Certificate strategically placed in a prominant space on their wall…why not any one if us?
We’re all equal in this Universe…Roit?
That IS quite a nice Bio of Dawkins at Guardian!
Thanks for the links, Old Git.
Hmmm…
Let’s see…ChuckA: Bachelor of Arts/Musician/Private Music Teacher/Atheist/GifS Commenter/Plenary Indulgence Counselor/Doctor of Divinity/Egomaniacal Bullshitter/…
IT…
COULD…
WORK!!!
28 December 2006, on 7:33 pm
Hey Chuck,
Can I join your church?
28 December 2006, on 8:40 pm
Audrey said,
“I simply don’t believe in gods, yours or any others. If you want to believe in your god, fine, but I reserve the right to believe that you’re worshipping one sick twisted fuck of a bastard.”
I agree completely. My mother is driving me nuts with religious belief. Whenever I point out the horrible parts of the bible it’s waved off as “symbolic”. She lectures at her church every Sunday, (wasn’t there a verse in the bible that condemns women for speaking in church?) One day I decided to go to the church with her near Xmas and some of the shit that goes on there really goes on there. (This was last Xmas) The preacher went off about the “war on Xmas” and how xians are oppressed. I swear, it took all of my self control to keep seated. I was going to go up there and smack the shit out of this guy. I’ve had dreams of going back to that church, going up to the front and reading some of the articles I’ve found on other blogs.
What’s gotten me really upset is that my mother takes what this man says at face value.
28 December 2006, on 8:50 pm
Hello there,i would like to explain my thinking on all this good vs. evil stuff
First off God gives people free will…..correct?
Yes, but what truly is free will?
There are bascially 3 choices God gives us to make, To do what his will is (Good), To do what God doesnt care about (neutral)(like play a game of cards), or not to do his will (Evil). God created us with the ability to do as we wish, to either follow his will or not. He allows free will in all humans. Evil is truly just the opposite of Gods will. God created the option to not follow him because he does not want mindless Robots loving him. Just like any normal person would only want genuine love, not forced love. God wants Genuine love. Therefore God created freewill but is not himself an Evil being.
Gooday to you all,
best of wishes
28 December 2006, on 8:54 pm
I swear, it took all of my self control to keep seated.
Advisor Moppet – I know how you feel. Having to sit through little prayers and listening to gawd this and gawd that, it’s really hard to contain myself. It’s getting more difficult with each family gathering where fundies are present. I refuse to sit through a church service anymore unless absolutely necessary…like funerals and weddings of close family members only.
28 December 2006, on 9:12 pm
Stardust,
This was for me, more of a spying type of thing. I wanted to see what my mother was getting involved with. As far as Xians making judgments about us without even talking to us….
I was discussing jesus with my mother when she had said that Father Jack (not his real name) thinks that I’m an agnostic. Meanwhile I’m thinking, how can he make that kind of a judgment about me without even meeting me or talking to me?
I’ll make a judgment about him…….
I know that he’s wrong about my point of view.
28 December 2006, on 9:19 pm
I’ve actually had a conversation/debate with a friend once because I do not believe in such a thing as “evil”. He looked at me like I was insane or something. But is it really that strange to not believe in some sort of metaphysical (am I using this word correctly?)entity-like “evil”? I think evil is purely an adjective. There are things I consider evil (although I hardly use the word), but pure evil..don’t believe in it. Which logically leads to not believing in pure good either I suppose. The thing is I’m alright with that. I do not need abstracts like this to feel comfortable with my life.
I have been asked what I think the purpose of life is then. But to me there is no “purpose”. There isn’t one single goal I as a human being need to accomplish like some sort of task in GTA: San Andreas. Life has whatever purpose I choose to give to it.
BTW Chuck, I really love that Epicurus quote.
28 December 2006, on 9:42 pm
OK guys..it’s been awhile…FUNDIE ALERT COMMENT #39!
Josh, it is not free will when there is only one option that will not get you put in a lake of fire for all eternity. God wants you to be mindless little robots, or else he will destroy you. Don’t you get it? There is no free will when there is only do or die.
28 December 2006, on 9:48 pm
Also we have been visited by evangelizing Thomas in an archived post here:
Rapture Lunatics Enraptured by Mideast Turmoil
Things are becoming a bit more lively around here recently.
28 December 2006, on 10:11 pm
Regarding Josh, I bet he doesn’t bother to return to have an actual discussion. As with most fundies, he’s probably a hit-and-run poster.
Excellent entry, Stardust.
28 December 2006, on 10:32 pm
In regard to “free will”: if god is omniscient, then it knows what one will choose to begin with so you can’t have both!
28 December 2006, on 10:35 pm
Welcome D, and thanks.
Josh may be back, but you are right when you say he won’t be back for an actual discussion. He has been here before and keeps popping in and out because he is a masochist and likes being “persecuted.”
29 December 2006, on 1:25 am
If you must torment yourselves with the religious drivel. (TAJ your a masochist). LOL Take a spin by craigslist discusssion forums and click on atheist. WOOOOOOOOO EEEEEEE.
29 December 2006, on 1:38 am
666, I’ve come to the same conclusion, yet people will STILL argue with you over it. Their favorite phrase is “he doesn’t make you do it.”
But they don’t seem to understand that he doesn’t have to force you to do something. The supposed CHOICE is just an illusion.
29 December 2006, on 6:06 am
Josh said:
According to the inerrant word of Josh’s god, it is therefore good to do carry out all of the following punishments, since his god demands it:
By Josh’s own admission, therefore, brutally murdering people for any of these so-called transgressions is not evil.
Does anyone else here think that Josh is an inmate in a (hopefully) secure mental instituion?
If he’s not, why not?
29 December 2006, on 6:40 am
Stardust said:
Agree entirely, Star. When I was a lad, such choices were known as “Hobson’s Choice”, or ‘take it or leave it’. As the Penguin Dictionary of Historical Slang says: “Hobson’s Choice – coloquial, first recorded 1649″ and it goes on to define it as effectively having no choice, giving a number of examples, including this one – “Can any woman think herself happy that’s obliged to marry only with Hobson’s choice?”
To call such a thing ‘free will’ is a travesty of language.
29 December 2006, on 7:00 am
Nathalie,
I share your views re the existence of good/evil, and whether one chooses to refer to them as absolutes is equally specious, since the one exists only by being defined by the other. Something that Buddhists and Daoists knew hundreds of years before xtains appeared on the scene. Naturally, fundies argue that I am wrong, and that for ‘good’ to exist, it is not necessary to have a concept of ‘evil’, which leaves them with the impossibility of explaining what ‘evil’ is without reference to ‘good’ (and vice versa).
AS for life having a purpose, my favourite reply when pushed is that it has none, since I believe in no-thing,(alternative translation of the Chinese, ‘wu-hsin’), and that really seems to drive my interlocutors nuts. They just don’t seem to be able to comprehend that one doesn’t have to assign a purpose to life in order to experience it fully.
29 December 2006, on 8:02 am
First off God gives people free will…..correct?
Hmm, I think you’ve come to the wrong site to be making such statements (and yes I know that practically speaking it’s a question but both you and I know better). I don’t believe in God and find “free will” a meaningless phrase. We all have the ability to make choices, therefore we all have a will which by this line of thinking is free. The only creatures that do not have free will are angels..guess what I don’t believe in them either.
Old Git (does one need to put the The in when addressing you?), I’ve had that happen too. People who do not comprehend that I (or others) do not need to assign purpose. The strangest thing about this though that in my opinion they do not assign a lot of purpose to their lives. To be good merely because your God demands this of you seems to me to be a lot less worthy than to be good because it is the right/moral thing to do.
The Buddhists and Daoists sure had it right. What amazes me though is that, without trying to sound conceited, I had figured out the necessity for evil to exist for there to be good by the time I was twelve. Therefore the inability of “grown-ups” for comprehending this on a purely logical level astounds me.
29 December 2006, on 11:08 am
Old Git, my Baptist family members have adjusted this for themselves to be comfortable with…they say that it is all in the “interpretation” and by “death” in these passages it really means eternal punishment in hell. Isn’t it “convenient” to have such a flexible mythology book to live by where one can bend the words and meanings anyway one wants to?
29 December 2006, on 12:05 pm
Yeah, Stardust, that’s pretty typical. Whenever they quote scripture they usually mean it literally, mainly with jeebus’ supposed quotes and such. Funny that no one wants to quote Leviticus and Deuteronomy literally in everyday life. That stuff is, at best, barbaric, and at worst, criminal at the worst possible level.
29 December 2006, on 12:15 pm
Revenant, Some Baptist churches and other evangelicals have tossed out the old testament entirely. When I was a teenager and went to the Baptist church for the couple of years my mother was trying to find herself after the Lutheran church wasn’t comforting enough after her mother died, (funny how that happens so often when a loved one dies…people go hunting for comfort from a magical being)…well…that Baptist church only had the New Testaments in their church pews. And the Old Testament was only referred to in reference to the creation story, Noah and the flood, and other little stories they picked and chose from. But mostly it was Paul, Paul, Paul…and Revelations, revelations, revelations…and hell, hell, hell….
29 December 2006, on 12:38 pm
Having spent some 40 years in the xian mindset, I came to understand evil as a force somewhat akin to gravity… the suggestion was, it’s a natural law governing our existence & that our only hope of overcoming it was to embrace god’s nature…
… it’s really a defeatist attitude… & no one ever explained why a good god would institute such a law of nature…
29 December 2006, on 12:42 pm
Stardust,
Any so-called believer who discards the OT has also effectively discarded the NT, since the latter does NOT stand without the former – unless one accepts that the (non-existent) figure, Jesus, was not ‘the Son of God’, since without the OT, ‘God’ does not exist!
Frankly, I am disillusioned by people like Dawkins, since he is far too kind to these religious types who twist and distort their own ‘truth’ rather than accept the real truth. Either they are complete liars, neurotic personalities, delusional psychopaths, ignorant morons, mendacious manipulators, or, more likely, a combination of all of these.
Piling them all into a heap and setting fire to them would be far too kind – and would also be bad for the planet!
Maybe we should just bury them in excrement instead!
29 December 2006, on 12:49 pm
Nathalie said:
You may use the definitive article if you wish, Nathalie.
Your statement, “The strangest thing about this though that in my opinion they do not assign a lot of purpose to their lives”, is one which I would agree with. Without this ‘god’ and his threats/promises, their lives are generally pointless.
Good for you for realising that. Unfortunately, many adults do not grow up, intellectually.
29 December 2006, on 1:47 pm
Proof that ‘god’ exists!
Yes, folks, I AM converted. My last post (#59) was a mess of html tags, and I apologised in the immediately following post before going off to have tea. Now, on my return, I find that my messy post has been corrected, and my apologetic one removed.
Now that’s what I call proof that god exists!
(PS: Thanks, Star, for I expect it was you ‘wot dunnit’, but if it was another worthy, thanks to them too!)
29 December 2006, on 2:01 pm
Old Git…you have been blessed by the omnipotent Stardust…peas be unto you.
29 December 2006, on 2:05 pm
Josh is just a hit and run poster. He dropped a comment on the Evangelical Atheist site last week. Both Stardust and I gave him long and well thought out reasons why we reject Christianity. He has not deigned to respond since.
29 December 2006, on 2:45 pm
tommy, You are right…Josh is nothing but a troll. He doesn’t go to atheist blogs for the discussion, he just wants to drop his turds and run off.
29 December 2006, on 3:24 pm
Josh…has been here before and keeps popping in and out because he is a masochist and likes being “persecuted.”
What a cheapskate!
I make my clients PAY ME for that sort of service!
29 December 2006, on 5:14 pm
actually friends i am not a hit and runner, and there is probably more then one Josh out there. Oh and i am here for good, clean, logical, scientific, and historical disccusion. The only reason i didnt post sooner is because i was at my friends hous spending the night. So let the disccusions begin. for an athiest i wonder is there really and good or evil or is it just personal preference?
29 December 2006, on 5:22 pm
oh and last time i came to this site almost all of my comments were modded. I followed all the rules, im not here to cause anger, but dabte is good and will sharpen the wits.As it says in Proverbs 27:17 “Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens anotother.” So if i cant put my whole thought down its really not fair, so lets play fair.
Gooday, ladys and Gents i hope to speak again and soon
29 December 2006, on 6:04 pm
I honestly did not modify or tamper with Josh’s last two comments before I let them go through. They are as they came in, I swear.
Josh says, I followed all the rules, im not here to cause anger, but dabte is good and will sharpen the wits
Before you join in here Josh, can you do something for me and go find a dictionary and sharpen up your grammar and spelling, as well?
I followed all the rules
Also, don’t you know it is not moral to lie?
29 December 2006, on 6:14 pm
for an athiest i wonder is there really and good or evil or is it just personal preference?
Josh…you are off topic already. You have not addressed the point of my post. Where did evil come from in the first place and why did the gawd of your mythology start these dicking games with his creations? Why put evil there to choose in the first place? Please take note that we have already discussed the free will and gawd giving his creatures a choice answer.
29 December 2006, on 6:57 pm
Josh,
Your last couple of post contained so many errors that they were almost unintelligible. Now I do not say that by way of criticism, for many of my posts also contain errors of one kind or another. However, my excuse is that I am a very old geriatric, suffering from incipient dementia (which impairs my critical faculties, such as they are), arthritic fingers (which impairs my ability to type), and rheumy eyes (which makes it difficult for me to see my errors).
What is your excuse?
29 December 2006, on 7:02 pm
Old Git,
Since Josh has said he couldn’t get back to us right away because he was “spending the night at a friend’s house” he either a)is an illiterate adult who spent the night with his girlfriend, b) is an illiterate adult who spent the night with his boyfriend, or c) just a kid who still likes to go on sleepovers and isn’t fully educated yet.
29 December 2006, on 7:06 pm
Josh,
You asked:
for an athiest i wonder is there really and good or evil or is it just personal preference? (sic)
Assuming for a moment that there are such things as good and evil in an objective sense, the choices available to an atheist are just the same as those for a theist,anyone else for that matter. In other words, atheist may act in a way which may be described as ‘good’ or in a way which may be described as ‘evil’, but that has nothing to do with atheism per se, or even atheism qua atheism. Gottit?
But even if good and evil exist only in the subjective and relative sense, the answer given in the foregoing paragraph is equally applicable. Gotthat?
29 December 2006, on 7:12 pm
Star,
You missed out (d); he’s just another illiterate red-neck fundie-loon – the clue is in the quote he gave: As it says in Proverbs 27:17 “Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens anotother.”(sic)
29 December 2006, on 7:28 pm
Old Git, actually the KJV passage says:
Countenance, according to Merriam-Webster is
One site’s interpretation of this passage is contradictory to the way that Josh has used it.
It is in reference to two friends of like minds complimenting each other. I guess that could happen here if we can come to mutual understanding and respect between atheists and xians, but that has not yet been our experience with Josh.
29 December 2006, on 7:43 pm
Star,
Allow me to correct your typo, before some fundie does, the King James that was behind the (then) new translation of the bible was King James the Sixth (i.e. KJIV, not KJV) of Scotland and King James the First of England,named as such because he was the first monarch to amalgamate the two thrones and nations into one.
Incidentally, old gits like me also know ‘countenance’ as another word for physiognomy, or face. As Chambers Dictionary has it: “countenance noun 1 face; expression or appearance. 2 support; patronage. verb (countenanced, countenancing) 1 to favour or support. 2 to allow; to tolerate. give countenance to something to support it, eg a proposal, etc. keep one’s countenance to remain composed, manage not to laugh, etc.
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from French contenance, from Latin continentia self-control.” (Incidentally, Chambers Dictionary was the definitive dictionary published in Scotland when I was a lad.)
29 December 2006, on 7:46 pm
Allow me to correct your typo, before some fundie does, the King James that was behind the (then) new translation of the
Old Git, my abbreviation KJV simply meant King James Version.
29 December 2006, on 7:50 pm
Ha, Star,
Now you can correct my typo (geriatric imbecile that I am). Should be ‘KJVI’ for King James the sixth, not KJIV as I (dyslexically) typed.
I’m always doing that sort of thing, referring to ‘left’ when I mean ‘right’. Guess my PCB has a few dry joints in it, LOL!
29 December 2006, on 7:52 pm
But, Star, I’m a Scot, and we always refer to it as the KGVI version, being both dour calvinistic protestants and inordinately proud of our despotic kings and queens.
29 December 2006, on 7:58 pm
BTW, Have you heard of the KGB version?
In the beginning there was the gulag, comrade!
Maybe it’s time I went to bed!
29 December 2006, on 8:03 pm
BTW, Have you heard of the KGB version?
In the beginning there was the gulag, comrade!
Maybe it’s time I went to bed!
LOL! Nighty night Old Git! It’s pretty late there, isn’t it around 2 a.m.?
29 December 2006, on 8:21 pm
According to my wonderful Windows OS (snigger) the time is 00:18. It’s not so much the lateness of the hour, but the quantity of the evil Al K. Hol I have imbibed that has caused my temporary insanity.
(PS: It was an excellent bottle of vintage port!)
29 December 2006, on 9:26 pm
Sorry for the errors. I will try harder not to have so many typos. I was just in a hurry. Oh and by the way i spent the night at my friends house….like a sleepover because im only 17.
Just in case you were curious. Oh and old Git very nice explanation, thank you. By the way stardust did not mod anything ive put down, she is telling the truth. Ive just had past bad experiences. Anywho I will go….until next time
Have a Good night…
29 December 2006, on 9:46 pm
Josh said: By the way stardust did not mod anything ive put down, she is telling the truth.
Did anyone here doubt that?
Josh…when you come back you might want to attempt to respond to the points made in the post and what I have asked you again in comment #68 and to what Old Git has said in comments # 50, 51, & 71.
And also, you haven’t responded to Nathalie’s comment #53.
Josh, are you just coming in and out for spelling and grammar lessons, or to say “howdy” and “bye” to us, or do you really have something you want to say here?
30 December 2006, on 12:37 am
I should probably just come out and say it like that because I end up getting “banned” from communicating with them even when I ask them nicely not to proseltyze to me via email, mail, etc.
Stardust, if you really want to get the point across and drive them nuts, you could always get yourself a Mailwasher account. I bought the Pro version in August (mainly because I handle the emails for 10 client websites and got truly pissed off with having to delete 1500+ bits of spam every day). You can set the paid option up to bounce or delete emails depending on where they’ve come from, the subject matter or, using filters, what’s in them. And it’s very cheap – cost me 15GBP, which would be about 30USD I think, as a one off. (Unfortunately they haven’t come up with an option to customise your bounces yet, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed.)
Wishing all GifSters a Happy, Healthy and Fundie-free 2007 – even though I know that last isn’t going to happen…
30 December 2006, on 12:42 am
Joules, I will have to check into that Mailwasher account. With all the fundie forwards I get, it might just be what I need.
Happy New Year to you, too!
(Fundie free? Only if I become a hermit and don’t answer the door, phone or read email!)
30 December 2006, on 12:38 pm
They get quite flustered with this debate and come quite close to telling me to just go to hell.
Oh, Stardust, this post is so funny! And xians will no doubt want to attribute gawd with the creation of logic which you use so effectively to kick those fundies in their pew-molded asses.
31 December 2006, on 12:42 am
Old Git:
AS for life having a purpose, my favourite reply when pushed is that it has none, since I believe in no-thing,(alternative translation of the Chinese, ‘wu-hsin’)
Ummm…wu-hsin actually translates to ‘no-mindedness’ Wu is the ‘no’, Hsin is the mind.
Wu Chi is nothing.
But that’s a pretty good answer. Kin I borrow it, purty please?
31 December 2006, on 5:10 am
Actually, KA, whilst ‘hsin’ is often translated as mind, that is not accurate as the word is actually one of those Chinese words that defy translation.
Hsin means mind, heart, soul, spirit, and each singly as well as all inclusively. However, the famous Zen poem of ‘Hsin-Hsin-Ming’ is most accurately translated as ‘Inscribed On The Believing Mind’; this poem was written by Seng-ts’an, the Third Zen Patriarch (d.o.d. 606 CE), and the doctrine of ‘no-mind’ is one of the most important in Ch’an/Zen Buddhism – as indeed it is in Mayhayana Buddhism.
When one acts with no-mind, one acts spontaneously, without the intercession of conscious cerebration, but directly, experientally. Since one acts without the intervention of the self, or ‘I’, in a sense one acts without acting, and there is nothing separating the actor from that which is acted upon. In this respect, it can be said that there is ‘no-thing’ that is acting, and ‘no-thing’ that is being acted upon. And of course you can use ‘wu-hsin’ in this way, KA.
I append a copy of the poem below with the proviso that the Mods can delete it if (a) it is too long, and/or (b) inappropriate.
31 December 2006, on 4:37 pm
I wonder is it usefull for me to answer your questions? If you dont believe in God anyway then why would you believe what i say? You think im a crazed idiot who believes in God blindly. I tell you the truth, my faith does not come blindly, the evidence is astounding.
If you ask me what my evcidnce is i will gladly share. I will say one thing though, i can clearly see why many of you may not believe or understand God, its the christians its the catholics its all… denominations. Truly we are doing a crappy job but there are still some who follow God the way he wanted and some who try not to condemn or judge, and i do hope that i have not offended anyone. Anyway if you want to know why i bleieve what i believe i will gladly do it in a civilized manner. Oh and stardust i have already explained why God gave the choice of evil.
Gooday and happy new year.
31 December 2006, on 5:34 pm
Josh, discussion is not merely one person stating something and the people you are talking to blindly agreeing with you. You might find that in your church, but you definitely will not find that on an atheist website, nor in the real world for that matter. You simply want us to agree with you and have made up your mind that you are right and do not even wish to debate it.
Ok, what evidence do you have, Josh? The only evidence that xians have is their ancient mythology book written and translated by imperfect humans. And the “the world is so complex” and “we don’t know how we got here” are not evidences that a god exists either.
Now, what evidence do you have, Josh? We are waiting to hear what it is.
After rereading your comment #39, I see you are admitting that you believe your god created evil in order to dick around with his creations. You stated
Like I have said before, Josh, if you only have two choices…do or die, you do not have much of what you call “free will”. You indeed are nothing more than a robot for your god.
31 December 2006, on 6:16 pm
Old Git:
As a long time practitioner of Tai Chi, the classics state that ‘Wu Chi is the beginning of Tai Chi.’
Also, I used to do Hsin-I, which translates to ‘Mind-intention boxing’.
Of course, it’s also contingent on whether you’re speaking Mandarin or Cantonese (lao shir translates as ‘old man’ or ‘teacher’ in Putonghua, while in Guangdong [Cantonese], it translates to ‘little mouse’).
Lovely poem, BTW. Thanks.
31 December 2006, on 6:32 pm
Josh,
Whilst I endorse what Stardust has said, I would like to amplify on her comments a little.
You have told us that you are 17 years of age, but I don’t know if that means that you have left the educational system or not. However, you will find that in the realms of genuine higher education, and in the professional and commercial business worlds, evidence consists of more than simply one person stating what they believe and others blindly accepting what they have said as fact.
In order to persuade others, one has to provide credible evidence independent of oneself – i.e. the evidence must exist independently of the person making the claim for it. It is not a question of atheist refusing to believe theists, but one of someone making a claim (i.e. you, in this case), who has an obligation to provide credible evidence to substantiate it. But you have not produced ANY such evidence that this entity you call ‘god’ exists, and furthermore you have failed to offer any rational argument to support this alleged god’s existence.
I am, however, prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, because if you have ever questioned your co-religionists for evidence, all they are likely to have done is refer you to the bible for what they call ‘proof’, or listen to some duplicitous and mendacious preacher who tells you demonstrable lies about creation and the like. As Stardust has said, the bible is no more proof that your ‘god’ exists than The Lord Of The Rings is proof that Frodo lived!(OK, I paraphrase her, but I’m sure she will agree with me.)
I would also like to say that if you, Josh, have credible proof that this entity you call god exists, then both me and the world at large would love you to share it with us. Apart from anything else, it will most certainly guarantee you being awarded a Nobel Prize, together with the not inconsiderable sum of 1 million Swedish Kroner.
Now whilst I look forward to you producing this evidence, may I add that any attempts at ‘witnessing’ do not count as credible evidence. So, if that is all that you have, please don’t bother to share it with me, since it is completely spurious.
It is also important for you to realise that my not accepting you claims at face value is nothing personal; neither does it amount to a charge of incivility on my part. You have made a claim that this entity you call ‘god’ exists; you have even gone further and claimed that “the evidence is astounding”, yet you have signally failed to provide anything that merits use of the word ‘evidence’. The onus to provide that evidence is on god-believers, since they are the ones making the claims for it, but no-one over the millennia has been able to do so. Now is your chance for fame.
31 December 2006, on 6:53 pm
Hi KA,
Your experience of the martial arts differs from mine, since your forms are Chinese whereas mine were Japanese, as were my Zen Masters.
When Bodhidharma took Mayhayana Buddhism to China, there were many Sanskrit words that did not transliterate well, if at all. This problem was multiplied when Ch’an Buddhism was taken to Japan, where it became known as Zen. The definition of ‘hsin’ I have given is one supported by Suzuki and other noted Sinologists, and, more importantly, gets directly to the essence of Zen: no mind = no thing.
Nevertheless, I have no problem with telling people from now on that I believe in Wu Chi, no-thing, since Zennists know that all word labels are essentially meaningless in any event. As Lao Tsu said: He who knows does not speak; He who speaks does not know.
I am glad you enjoyed the poem, BTW.
31 December 2006, on 7:46 pm
ok, well i thank you all for giving me a chance to show you why i believe in God. Since you dont like the bible (fair enough) then i will only go into the historical arguments of the bible. I will use no scripture to promote the bible unless it has to do with something scientifically or historically, moreover i will try to stay away from it. Now you must understand that if i am to give you my evidence there will be quite a bit to read through, so bear with me. Once again thank you. Now i begin
Something had to have caused the universe because nothing comes from nothing and that my frineds is where i believe God comes into play. After stating this some of you may be saying “well what created God then?” the answer is simple. Nothing created God; he is an eternal being. Everything that has a beginning has a creator. The universe had a beginning therefore it had a creator. God, unlike the universe had no beginning, so he has no creator. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So, time itself would have begun along with matter and space. If God created the whole universe then he also created the laws of time. Therefore the time dimension he created does not limit him. Like i said earlier, he is eternal. It talks about this in Isaiah 57:15. God has always existed. There is good evidnece that shows the universe had a beginning. That would be the laws of thermodynamics. The first law states that the total mass of energy in the universe is constant. The second law states that the amount of usable energy is running out (Entropy is increasing to a maximum). So, if the universe existed forever we would already be out of usable energy and the universe would be dead. All radioactive atoms would have decayed and the whole universe would be the same temperature. No further world would be possible because all you have left is energy that is usless. So the universe must have had a beginnig since we still have usable energy. So the conclusion being made is that the universe had a beginning. Everything that has a beginning has a creator, therefore there must be a God.
This is all i have time for right now, which may be a good thing so i dont bore you guys. This is just the beggining of evidences, but this one scientific law proves a creator.
31 December 2006, on 10:07 pm
Old Git:
I gotcha. ‘Zazen’ is the nihongo word for ‘no-mind’, if memory serves.
You could make a successful argument about the transitive property of ‘no-thing’ as equivalent to ‘no-mind’, I suppose.
He who knows does not speak; He who speaks does not know.
Yeah, there’s another of those translation things: when I read it, it said: ‘He who knows much says little, he who knows little says much’. Which means I should shut my yap now, but it’s never stopped me before.
I even have an old Penguin edition (1989) of the Tao Te Ching, & get this, I kid you not: they liberally interchange ‘god’ w/the ‘tao’.
Talk about ‘lost in translation’! Oy vey!
1 January 2007, on 4:15 am
Nothing created God; he is an eternal being.
Josh, where is your evidence for this? Where is your evidence for this eternal being you believe in? What properties does this being consist of?
What does it look like? Where does it exist? Where is heaven? What proof do you have of this eternal being outside of an ancient book written by humans? We can look far into the cosmos with a telescope and see the universe, but no one in all the centuries of looking into space has one person ever seen any evidence whatsoever for the existence of your imaginary friend.
1 January 2007, on 5:07 am
KA,
I am astounded that a reputable publisher like Penguin would use some third-rate religious moron who would translate tao as god. Almost unbelievable (which is not to say that I don’t believe you, KA.) Tao is transliterated into Japanese as ‘do’, which means, unsurprisingly, ‘the way’. Hence, ‘bushido’, the way of the bushi, or warrior.
‘Zazen’ is a Japanese word meaning ’sitting meditation’, and the Soto sect believe that it is sufficient in itself. The Chinese from which this is transliterated is “ts’o-ch’an” or , which itself is an attempt to transliterate the Sanskrit word ‘dhyana’, which is usually rendered (poorly)in English as ‘meditation’, though that does not capture the full meaning of the word at all. Meditation was normally done in the posture known as ‘padmasana’, or the lotus posture.
And with that I will apologise to the Mods for diverting this thread off-topic once again.
1 January 2007, on 6:06 am
Josh said:
If your claims are to stand up as a piece of valid logic, then your premisses must be true in and of themselves, and they must also be valid, otherwise the conclusion drawn from them is not true. And, furthermore, if our reasoning is valid, there is no way that our conclusion could be false if our premisses are true.
Your argument can be restated simply, but no less accurately, as follows:
-The universe exists.
-Everything that exists except a supernatural entity called god was created.
-Therefore god is the creator of the universe.
Whilst the first premiss is undoubtedly true, the second premiss is invalid, for the simple reason that impossible to state where precisely the cause qua cause began which it is alleged produced the effect that one is confronted with. (In simple terms, when were you created, Josh? At the moment of your awakening consciousness? At your birth? At the moment of impregnation? At your mother’s birth? At her mother’s birth? Or when the first hominids appeared?) Furthermore, the second premiss is untrue, because it simply assumes that this entity which you call god exists, but there is absolutely no evidence that it does, and you have failed to produce any. Consequently, the conclusion drawn from your premisses is invalid and untrue, and your whole argument is false.
As for your claim that “There is good evidnece that shows the universe had a beginning.”(sic), I presume that you are referring to what is called ‘Big Bang’. If so, you may care to note that some theoretiticians are of the opinion that Big Bang was not the beginning per se, but just another event in an everlasting continuum which was not created by this “eternal being” you personify and call ‘god’, and neither does it need one.
In conclusion, I reiterate some of the comments I made in my previous reply to you:
I would also like to say that if you, Josh, have credible proof that this entity you call god exists, then both me and the world at large would love you to share it with us. Apart from anything else, it will most certainly guarantee you being awarded a Nobel Prize, together with the not inconsiderable sum of 1 million Swedish Kroner.
BTW, when I ask you to share this with us, I want credible proof, not trite arguments. (You will also find that the Academicians at the Nobel Institute will also require this of you).
1 January 2007, on 6:32 am
Josh,
Your argue that, due to thermodynamics second law, the Universe needs to have had a beginning. This is incorrect (your argument is invalid; I am not denying your conclusion). Thermo’s second law establishes that the total entropy of the universe can never decrease with time, but it says nothing about the rate at which it increases. Hence you cannot conclude from there that the universe needs to have had a beginning.
I wanted to point this out because your error is actually Zeno’s paradox in disguise! It amazes me to no end that this “paradox” is not just an academic trick, but that people in real life get tricked by it, just like you did.
However, all this is completely irrelevant to the question of God. Whether the universe had a beginning or not does not allow you to declare, just because you want, that God exists and that God is an eternal being. That was a gratuitous assumption of yours. Or, at least, you did not provide any justification for it (you did not even attemptto provide any justification for it!)
1 January 2007, on 1:33 pm
Old Git:
Yeah, back in me pre-atheist days, I didn’t see any problem w/it: I just ignored it.
Now, I see the invidious invasion of religion into everything. It seems to be the ingredient in so many recipes of the memes we digest on a regular basis.
1 January 2007, on 4:28 pm
Josh:
err, ummm, no. It’s your side o’ the debate what claims something came from nothing.
Stardust had a great post on her blog, where 3 astrophysicists have found clues that there was another contracting universe prior to this 1.
Quantum loop mechanics?
You’re misinterpreting the 2nd law, I think. You’re thinking linearally (straight line). It IS possible for said energy to stay on a plateau, to go backwards or forwards.
I say that energy’s always existed. Unless you can prove otherwise.
“In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as Bénard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable “edge of chaos” arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).”
http://www.answers.com/second%20law%20of%20thermodynamics
1 January 2007, on 5:00 pm
Can someone please tell me how to find Stardust’s blog, as I’d love to read it.
1 January 2007, on 5:49 pm
Old Git
Stardust Musings and Thoughts for the Freethinker
1 January 2007, on 8:35 pm
Theres just one problem…….how did anything get here without being created? I just want to hear what you guys think because i know you probably have an answer.
1 January 2007, on 8:55 pm
Theres just one problem…….how did anything get here without being created? I just want to hear what you guys think because i know you probably have an answer.
Josh, didn’t you read anything that any of the above educated commenters have written? Clear out your head of your religious stuff for a few minutes and re-read. OPEN YOUR MIND.
Just because we are not certain how life began or how the universe came to be (though scientists have come up with some amazing scientific theories supported by evidence for how the universe began) doesn’t mean we take the lazy way out and simply assume a magical being must have created us.
Again…where is your evidence for this creator? What does it look like? Where does it exist? Where is heaven? What proof do you have of this eternal being and his magical kingdom outside of an ancient book written by humans?
1 January 2007, on 9:28 pm
Josh,
First, define what you mean by being created.
Second,I don’t wish to sound unkind, but either you don’t read what has been written in response to your previous comments, or else you have extreme difficulty in comprehending simple English.
Third, if you continue to ignore the issues that have been put to you, then you are egregiously wasting our time, and it is clearly fruitless responding to you any further.
1 January 2007, on 9:38 pm
Theres just one problem…….how did anything get here without being created? I just want to hear what you guys think because i know you probably have an answer.
Josh, we have some very good ideas on how the universe, the Earth, and life have evolved from much simpler states to become what they are today, but the answer to your question is “we don’t know”. Maybe the Universe has existed forever. Maybe the Universe had a beginning. But any of those posibilities, as difficult as it may seem, is way simpler than postulating the existence of a creator God.
Think about it: a personal God, that has existed for an eternity all alone in nowhere, and all of a sudden made “puff” and created the Universe. Then he waited for eons for the Universe to evolve and even more eons for life to be created on a third-rate planet and he sent his son. All the time he has been hidden in an invisible place, watching all of us and judging us. Wouldn’t this incredibly being that you postulate as a creator of our Universe (which is a much simpler system than your God!) also require an explanation of how it came to be?
If you think that the Universe existing forever, or the Universe having a beginning in whatever its first, most simple state was, is a difficult to accept theory, then this added creator God makes it plain laughable.
2 January 2007, on 12:32 am
…then this added creator God makes it plain laughable.
The addition is also a fallacy.
Read some Hume, Josh — preferably the Dialogues, Part V:
That is, even if anyone here grants an “uncaused cause” (which isn’t necessary), there’s the burden of showing how this “cause” has all the other properties you suggest.
2 January 2007, on 4:03 am
Hi Guys
Zip Said:
“Think about it: a personal God, that has existed for an eternity all alone in nowhere, and all of a sudden made “puff” and created the Universe”
Thi is exactly what atheism must believe. That the universe came from nothing. I agree with this as science says the universe has a begining and this is supported by the Kalam cosmology principle, mathematics, laws od causeality and many others.
For example mathematics says that infinity plus infinty equals infinity. But infinity minus infinity equals zero. This is a basic way to show mathematics supporting any theories and in this cae supports the universe having a beginning.
I will now use philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
1-Universe has a begining(supported by science in astronomy, physics, cosmology etc)
2-Universe has a begining so it has a cause which is outside time, space and the laws of physics.(law of causality)
3-This cause is like God so it would be reasonable to believe it is God.
4- God is eternal so He is outside a beginning and has no cause.
To not believe in God actually means you believe in nothing which was your argument against God in the first place.
It takes greater faith to believe in what you believe. I do not have the amount of faith you have so I cannot belive that nothing created something like our universe.
alexie
2 January 2007, on 4:14 am
Hi Guys
I have two children who usually obey me. When they do not it can actually hurt them, as when my son got burnt on a stove once after I said not to touch it. He found out what hot means.
The same for God
About evil etc and God.
We were created to obey God and have a relationship with Him. All was good as the Bible says. He told man not to eat from the tree. We chose to disobey Him and separate ourselves from Him. If God tied us up with no free choice what sort of love would that be. I wish not to tie my own children up to protect them. This is an either or argument. Either God ties us up or He lets us go. Evil in simple terms, is nothing more than disobeying God. Then when we disobey we get hurt and hurt others. What would happen if we all followed the Bible exactly as God wanted? Imagine that! No stealing, no lieing, no murder, no adultury etc etc. Now we know we cannot and thats why Jesus was sent to take on the punishment for us to release us into His arms. Darkness and light cannot mix.
Now Satan dis-obeyed God and continues to.
The above is quite simple to understand and shows that God did not create a culture of rebellion. We do that all by ourselves.
Alexie
2 January 2007, on 10:20 am
We were created to obey God and have a relationship with Him.
Alexie, Do or die is not free will and not much of a choice. You are saying that we are nothing more than your god’s little pets or puppets. If this god wanted little pets who obey him so badly that if they don’t he will destroy them, then what is the point of allowing them to have free will in the first place? If my children only love me out of fear and obedience, that is not true love. I would not want that kind of love and I cannot imagine that if a supreme, all-powerful being existed that he would even need that kind of love. Human beings have created this god in their image and have given this god human charactistics just like any gods found in any mythology. Study mythologies of the many cultures on this planet and you might begin to understand how humans think.
Another point to keep in mind, Alexie, is what Dawkins mentions in his videos a newer post on this site. If you were born in another culture you would hold the beliefs of that culture. If you were born in India, for example, most likely you would follow some sort of Hindu beliefs, if you were born in the Middle East (Iraq) you would be either Sunni, Shiite or Kurd muslim. Children are usually taught the beliefs of the family and ancestors.
Alexie, clear your mind of religious indoctrination, if you can, long enough to explore other ways of thinking and really take a look at your religious beliefs from the OUTSIDE.
2 January 2007, on 10:33 am
Alexie, I will also tell you what I told Josh above (who has not yet provided evidence for his claims):
Just because we are not certain how life began or how the universe came to be (though scientists have come up with some amazing scientific theories supported by evidence for how the universe began and how life on Earth began and evolved) doesn’t mean we automatically fall back on the “god must have done it” explanation by default.
Again…like I asked Josh, where is your evidence for this creator? What does it look like? Where does it exist? Where is heaven? What proof do you have of this eternal being and his magical kingdom outside of an ancient book written by humans?
2 January 2007, on 11:07 am
Of course, you mean none of the above unless gawd commands us to do so, like when people worship other gods. It’s ok to murder them. In fact, it’s commanded to do so, if we follow the examples of Moses and Joshua.
And of course lying (lieing is not a word) is permissible when gawd does it, or commands people to do so. Such as commanding Abraham to murder his son, but then saying it was just a test, at the last possible second.
And Adultery is ok, along with Incest. Must have been, since that’s the only way Cain and Abel could have procreated.
Nice to see your brainwashing is complete.
2 January 2007, on 2:25 pm
Well…to prove my God i must first disprove the theory of evolution. Evolution has to many inconsistencies. Just look at this site
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
2 January 2007, on 2:35 pm
Well…to prove my God i must first disprove the theory of evolution. Evolution has to many inconsistencies. Just look at this site
LOLOLOLOL!!! ROTFLMAO Um…no Josh. (Boy am I am trying to contain myself here!) Josh, you do not have to disprove one thing in order to prove another. (And if you can disprove the theory of evolution you would be a monumental genius.) The elimination of one thing does not automatically default to a conclusion that a made-up belief is real. That is ridiculous. It’s like saying we have to disprove that there is a desolate polar ice cap in order to prove the existence of Santa Claus’ North Pole magical workshop.
(You are clearly not educated whatsoever in the field of Biology and you don’t have a clue about what evolution is.)
2 January 2007, on 2:43 pm
Ten minutes later and I am still laughing. Oh man, Josh you made my day.
2 January 2007, on 3:21 pm
Josh, try checking a non-religious scientific site for your science information.
When you have statements like this: “There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.” Credibility just goes out the window. EVERY SINGLE THING THAT EVER LIVED IS A TRANSITIONAL FORM.
We are transitional forms, a cow is a transitional form, since all species are constantly changing.
And then you have monumental statements such as this: “Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies”
I’m lauging right along with Stardust. Milk is coming out of my nose, and I haven’t even drank any today. I can find inconsistencies in ANY theory, that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
On the other hand, there are NO logical consistencies with creationism. You’re willing to go from a few inconsistencies (evolution) to zero logic (or evidence) (Creationism)? WHY???
2 January 2007, on 3:23 pm
So, Josh, you can disprove the theory of evolution, can you?
Well boy, don’t waste your time on us, contact The Nobel Foundation immediately and ascertain how you can be nominated to become a Nobel Laureate.
BTW, the proofs have to be your own original work, not links to some gob-shite creationist website filled with pseudo-scientific nonsense!
2 January 2007, on 3:24 pm
Oh, and this one: “Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.”
Well, yes it can, if you’re delusional and believe in a big sky daddy is needed to help you wipe your ass. But for us reasoning beings, there are NO social or practical inconsistencies.
2 January 2007, on 6:52 pm
alexie:
Wow, talk about goofy.
No, no, no. Again & again, ad infinitum: YOUR side says ’something from nothing’.
1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.
I choose option 1B. Ergo, options 2 & 3 vanish (poof!) from sight.
Here’s a good POV:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html
What works w/your fellow believers ain’t gonna fly around here, just so ya know.
2 January 2007, on 8:00 pm
What would happen if we all followed the Bible exactly as God wanted? Imagine that! No stealing, no lieing, no murder, no adultury etc etc.
Alexie, it is impossible to follow everything in the bible unless one has multiple personality disorder. For every passage that says one thing, I can point to one that says the opposite. It is a book of opposites, of contradictions.
The above is quite simple to understand and shows that God did not create a culture of rebellion. We do that all by ourselves.
But Alexie, where did the options to rebel come from? Where did the “wrong” choice come from? You believe your god made everything, and gave us choices. You are admitting it was a complete set-up. Adam and Eve in your mythology story were in a no-win situation. Be their god’s lap dog, or be tortured in a lake of fire for all eternity. (Where exactly is this lake of fire anyway?) If any of my children did not wish to love me any longer, I would NEVER wish them harm in any way, and especially not eternal torment! I wish them peace and love always. Your god is sick and sadistic.
How can you say that the god of your mythology is all-knowing, all-powerful when he could not even come up with a way to allow his creations to love him and follow him without bringing evil into it? Also, if this god created everything, he sure has made a mess of things and it would be his own fault for doing such a poor job when creating things. Nothing lasts, everything dies. Nothing is perfect. Even stars die eventually.
I am not blaming a god because I do not believe that gods exist. It is the nature of things — the cycle of life. And like we have been telling Josh, just because you don’t understand how things came to be doesn’t mean that a god had to have done it. That is just a reason to give yourselves because you can’t deal with not knowing, and are too superstitious to question things, and the biggest reason is that you can’t deal with the reality of your own mortality without belief in an afterlife. If you need that, so be it. But some of us don’t. That is where the problem comes in. You just can’t believe and be happy with your own delusions.
2 January 2007, on 9:35 pm
Josh, I am laughing here with Stardust and Revenant.
First, if you want to understand the theory of evolution, learn it from a biology site or biology book first! (You may notice that most of us here were once Christians who once read and studied the Bible before criticizing it. We do not just repeat whatever an anti-Christian website says without understanding it).
Second, as The Old Git says, if you can disprove evolution, go ahead and claim the Nobel award. And claim the Templeton award as well. If you can do that succesfully you will probably earn the respect of the whole scientific community.
And finally, even if you were to disprove evolution, that would do nothing with respect to proving the existence of god, let alone the Christian god or the Bible.
3 January 2007, on 12:18 am
lol, really i do agree that was a dumb comment i made..about the proof of something to prove something…i was driving in my car when i thought about it…”i will disprove evolution to prove my God”…”oops that doesnt make much sense” lol, but anywho im glad i could make your day. Well i guess im going to try to get my facts together so i can put up a real argument and then i will return.
Gooday ladies and Gents
3 January 2007, on 12:24 am
lol, really i do agree that was a dumb comment i made..about the proof of something to prove something . . .Well i guess im going to try to get my facts together so i can put up a real argument and then i will return.
Josh, at least you are man enough to admit your mistake. That is refreshing. We will be looking forward to when you return with your “facts”.
3 January 2007, on 12:30 am
Oh and i do know a thing or two about evolution…i dont know it top from bottom, but i learn more each day and still i see no logistics in it. I will say that i agree with natural selection…a form of evolution. Revanent i think there is just as many if not more logic in my “Creationism” then your “we all came from a single celled organism.”
but enough of that.
ive enjoyed talking with you all. I have learned from our discussions. You all probably just got a laugh out of me and feel better about your beliefs. Its all cool though because i will be back
Gooday, once again
3 January 2007, on 12:38 am
You all probably just got a laugh out of me and feel better about your beliefs.
Actually Josh, getting a laugh out of you would make zero difference to what I believe…even xians I know would get a chuckle out of you.
3 January 2007, on 12:40 am
i think there is just as many if not more logic in my “Creationism” then your “we all came from a single celled organism.”
We will be waiting for you to come back and elaborate on that, Josh.
3 January 2007, on 12:45 am
josh:
You mean ‘logic’? Logistics means:
1. The aspect of military operations that deals with the procurement, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel.
2. The management of the details of an operation.
Well, you hide it very well.
3 January 2007, on 10:06 am
Josh wrote:
Josh, dude, Natural Selection isn’t a “form of evolution”, it’s one of the mechanics of evolution.
FYI, you should have used “much” instead of “many” in your sentence, as well as “than” instead of “then”.
PLEASE show me ANY logic with Creationism! The whole basis of Creationism relies on an all-powerful, timeless entity which has no proof of ever having existed, and defies all laws of physics that are proven every nanosecond of every day. Any attempt at logic falls on its face immediately, because it cannot be proven, or even tested.
To say that “X isn’t 100% certain therefore Y must be true”, where X = Evolution and Y = Creationism, doesn’t even qualify as a logical fallacy, it’s just preposterous. Simply put, Creationism is not, and never has been, a valid scientific principle.
3 January 2007, on 10:07 am
Let me add that the reason it’s preposterous is because the lack of one doesn’t automatically prove the other. Because Creationism isn’t a valid hypothesis doesn’t prove that Evolution is. The converse is also true.
4 January 2007, on 3:19 am
Revenant:
That’s Munchhausen’s trilemma, AKA Agrippa’s trilemma.
“1. All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of ‘infinite regression’.
2. One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking ‘ex cathedra’ or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.
3. The third horn of the trilemma is the application of a circular and therefore invalid argument.”
Also:
“the impossibility to prove any certain truth is not in itself a certain truth”
5 January 2007, on 11:14 pm
Hey, where did Joshy-boy go? He was supposed to come back here after he got his “facts” together so he could “put up a real argument”.
Hmmmm…hard to dig up facts and evidence for a non-existent god, isn’t it Josh?
5 January 2007, on 11:37 pm
IF he comes back, he’ll have the typical creationist total fantasy bullshit by Gish or some other asshat who couldn’t comprehend what he learned in college.
6 January 2007, on 1:40 am
Dear Rev and others
Adam and Eve were in a win win situation.
They god made it into a win-lose situation.
You are not follwoing my logic from above.
Have another read. I am mainly coming at you with logic.
Also you guys jut have a problem with doing as you are told. Would you tell the Judge in a court that he is being unfair because the laws of the land made me make a wrong choice that I think is not wrong. We all have to follow some sort of rules. If you drive a care what side of the road did you drive on? That is correct! You followed the rules. Why is God so different! He set the rules and thats it. The government sets rules and thats it! You break them you pay. Simple.
As for Krystalline saying what I wrote as Goofy, I did not realise using logic and science principles to discuss my faith with was goofy. I am sorry if reason, intellectual pursuits and discussions are goofy for you.
Come on guys come play with some logic!!!
Alexie
6 January 2007, on 1:45 am
Dear Rev
Earlier you spoke about knowledge and other stuff. I think you also mentioned truth or alluded to that.
There has to be an absolute truth.
If you say there is not absolute truth and you believe that truth cannot be known or its relative, then you are in fact making an absolute point, which makes it absolute truth.
You mentioned, “the impossibility to prove any certain truth is not in itself a certain truth”. Is this absolutley true? Are you not making your comment absolute? Or are you unsure, which then means your cxomment is not true?
Alexie
6 January 2007, on 1:57 am
Goofy ALEXIE..Why don’t you try going back and learning what logic is before throwing the word around in an argument. It will keep you from continuing to look foolish. Logic is something you use when thinking, not to play with. (Have you ever taken a college-level Logic course? Some people who comment here probably teach it.)
Also, believing in an imaginary genie friend who grants your wishes and watches every move of every person on a teeny-tiny planet while controlling a whole active universe from his magical kingdom is not reasonable or intellectual and is indeed goofy.
6 January 2007, on 2:18 am
There has to be an absolute truth.
Alexie, what is absolute truth? You and Josh think you are quite the little know-it-alls. Perhaps you would like to share your philosophical genius with all the highly-educated, informed and intelligent professionals who moderate and comment on this website and explain precisely what you mean in greater depth?
But before you embarrass yourself, instead of just doing what you are told by your imaginary friend, I would suggest that you get down off your holy high-horse go to a library and do a lot more studying about Logic, Philosophy, and even Theology before coming back and trying to interject these things into a discussion.
6 January 2007, on 11:21 am
Wow, not what I said at all. Let me try again with little words.
Disproving one theory does not automatically prove another theory.
As for your other “logic”, well, I don’t think you’d know logic if it came up and crapped on your face.
You said: “They god made it into a win-lose situation.”
How can I respond to that when it has no meaning? Are you speaking Ebonics or something? Am I to assume you meant “Then” instead of “They”? If so, that begs the question WHY did gawd make a win-win situation into a win-lose? Megalomania and Sadism are the only reasons I can think of.
Doing as we’re told? ROTFL! Told by whom??
Tell me, when did you last make an animal sacrifice to gawd? Since he so loves the sweet savour or roasted farm animals, I’m sure you’ve done what you were told. Do you follow ALL of the OT Laws as gawd commanded for all time? Doesn’t get much more straightforward than that.
Honestly, your spelling and grammar are SO bad, I can’t make much sense of anything you say. Whether or not that makes you stupid is your problem, not mine.
As for laws. I recognize the laws of men because they largely make sense. I do NOT recognize the laws of an imaginary closet buddy because most of them are totally ludicrous, such as the animal sacrifice thing, the keeping of slaves, selling your daughters into slavery, putting rape victims to death, etc, ad nauseum.
The 10 Suggestions are about the only ones that make any sense, but those aren’t gawd’s laws, those are basic moral codes which man has exercised for milennia, BEFORE Abraham thought up a god. Read some anthropology texts about societal development and civilization as a whole, why don’t you.
And, even the people gawd gave his laws directly to couldn’t follow his 10 suggestions. No sooner did Moses bring the tablets down were they off murdering thousands. So much for the #1 suggestion.
Shouldn’t you be praying for eternal salvation or something instead of bothering folks who actually have brains and know how to use them?
SHEESH!
6 January 2007, on 6:48 pm
Alexie:
Err, ummm…I didn’t say that. I (not Revenant) said this:
Really, it’s difficult to take your ejaculations seriously, when you can’t even keep track of who said what.
Onwards:
Really, did you take a course in Sophistry 101? That’s the middle-school equivalent of ‘I’m a liar. That sentence is the truth!’
Nice try, no cigar. Playing games w/semantics is neither clever, nor mind-boggling.
Let’s do this: give me (or us) your definition of ‘truth’. I’m betting that it won’t be the dictionary’s.
& do try to leave ‘gawd’ & ‘jay-sus’ out of it, if you’d be so kind.
I’m sure most of us would, once you actually begin to use some.
15 January 2007, on 10:49 pm
Try reading Heinlein’s ‘Job: A Comedy of Justice’ if you haven’t already. I brought up some very interesting questions in my mind. ie why is first testament god all vengeance and second testament god all about ‘lurve’
As for logic: If it is logical to one person then it is logic, regardless of the sense of it to others.
16 January 2007, on 12:15 am
I don’t think that’s true. There is only one logic, that which is demonstrably true. If I say 2+2=4, and you say 2+2=23, mine is logic and yours isn’t, because you can’t prove it “logically”, or something like that.