"Brian L" wrote in message
I just saw an interview with the police officer who captured Timothy McVeigh, essentially by pure chance. He said it was fate, that God put him at the right place at the right time. I felt like screaming "No, the right time would have been BEFORE he set off the bomb you fucking idiot".
A few years ago, there was a tornado approaching a very small town somewhere in Iowa (IIRC). Most of that community fled to the church for protection from the storm, but the twister skipped over the first row of houses, bounced off a field over the second row of houses and hit the church head-on, destroying it completely. The pitiful few survivors were interviewed, thanking God for saving their lives!
But it looked to me like even if you believed in God, it should have been apparent that he had gone bowling for Christians and got nearly all of 'em. I mean who am I to believe it is who manufactures, powers, and steers a tornado anyway?
Aron-Ra
"Back in the mid-1980s, a man promised God he would give 25 cents for every extra shave he got from his Bic disposable. To his amazement, he began getting 80 and 90 shaves instead of his usual four or five. Other men from his church joined in, with similar results.
At the time, I was an editor for a denominational magazine. We thought the story inspiring and published it. On the cover we featured the participants -- all lathered up and holding aloft their razors. What a miracle.
But the readers didn't all share our enthusiasm. One poignant letter went something like: Yesterday a young mother of three learned she had terminal cancer. Yesterday a little boy chased a ball into the street and was killed. Yesterday millions went to bed hungry. And where was God during all this? He was busy sharpening Bic razors."
I recently read a letter to the editor of a local newspaper poking fun at how right wingers are so prone to accouse our times of displaying moral decay.
The writer of the letter wanted to know exactly what time people were comparing modern times to. Was it 50 years ago with the jim crowe laws denying rights to people of color? Was it 100 years ago where 1/2 the population -- women -- weren't permitted to vote? Was it 150 years ago when slavery was permitted? Was it 200 years ago when the native americans were being run off their lands?
If God exists and has the set of ultimate and perfect attributes normally ascribed to him by theologians then human life, no matter how distinguished, is but a redundant and tedious exercise. Contrary to popular opinion, it is God's existence -- not his lack --which would render human life meaningless. For, why should I quest for knowledge when by assumption there is a being who has already figured out every thing that can be figured out? All my work will, in the final analysis, only be a vain duplication of that which god knew from the beginning of time. Therefore seeking knowledge amounts, paradoxically, to a fools errand.
In a like way, why should I quest for power if there is already a being who has this in infinite quantity. It will have been an entirely unnecessary exercise, because God can do anything I could ever achieve and more without any undue effort. All I need to do is ask god to place me on his cosmic dole, so that any need for knowledge, power or anything else for that matter can simply be given to me. That way I avoid the redundant actions of life that seem to be the only thing I am capable of in the first place.
For that matter, why even bother to exercise thought. (I know some xtians have already abandoned this) If I think and that action corroborates my being by the Cartesian argument, then god's existence invalidates my need for thinking. I am left to conclude that I am simply here to go through motions which god would like to be played out for his own amusement. So in answer to the famous question, "Am I here for your amusement?" the answer from God is a resounding "YES"!
Anonymous wrote...
He realized Jesus could be only 3 things
1. He could be crazy
2. He could be lying
3. He could be exactly what he said he was.
But he was one of these 3.
Why? What about [off the top of my head]:
4. He could simply have been very badly misquoted about several of the things he was reported to have said.
5. He could be a partly historical, partly mythical figure something like a Robin Hood or King Arthur?
5a. 'He' could be an amalgam of accurate reports, distorted stories and legends originally about several different real people and/or mythical figures?
6. Entirely legendary?
7. [Use your imagination; there must be many other possibilities]. A visiting space alien doing a sociological experiment on the locals; an amnesiac time traveller; swamp gas...
[snip rest of the good old lord/liar/lunatic thing]
cheers
"The Australian Bunker Hunter" wrote
With no disrespect why is so hard to believe in a high spiritual power?
It's not "hard to believe" in a higher spiritual power. In fact, it's too easy, that's why so many people do it. What's hard is training yourself not to believe in things just because you like them. What's hard is learning that belief requires evidence, and evaluating evidence requires work. What's hard is learning to be skeptical of attractive ideas with no substance to back them up.
MarkA
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak Atheism
As someone (whose article seems to have expired here) stated earlier, the best description of the 'weak'/'strong' distinction can be summed up by:
weak: not believe (god)
strong: believe (not god)
It seems that I could be both depending on the scope of the current conversation. When 'god' refers simply to some vague, undefined deity (or "philosopher's god"), I'm more likely to adopt the 'weak' position. However, when a deity is sufficiently well defined to get a handle on what is being described (Allah, YHVH, Shiva, Zeus, etc..) then I'm more likely to adopt the 'strong' position. An interesting thing that I often point out to theists is that they're 'strongly atheistic' towards just about every deity save one. Some then come to recognize that I've no reason to treat they're deity any differently.
--
Brett G. Lemoine
Dial a Psychic
By Reginald V. Finley
On Sunday morning the 15th of August, I was looking in the classifieds section of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. As I was searching for a new career I came across an ad in the counseling section which was recruiting for psychics. I couldn't believe it. "Counseling, I can do that," I thought to myself. I called the number advertised and spoke to a gentleman who informed me to meet with him at a Shoney's restaurant in the northwest end of town (Cobb Pkwy, Marietta, GA). When I arrived there a conference room in the back was already filled with eager people waiting to learn the particulars of psychic-hood. I apologized for being late and humorously informed them that if I were psychic I would have found the place. They all chuckled. The ringleader was a warm and friendly Caucasian female around 30ish. She began to explain the hours involved, paper work, commission structure, tricks of the trade, and so on. The concept seemed sound enough. The longer you keep the caller on the line the more you get paid. So, if you are consistently receiving calls you can make a fortune. A computer program calculates everyone's averages and distributes calls based on your averages.
I decided to give it a try. A "ring master" line was added in my home and in two days the calls came rolling in. I was taken aback on how amazingly gullible and ignorant these people were. I received calls ranging from the curious to the suicidal, from the depressed to the malign, from young to old. No one seemed immune. Over 75% of callers were female and 50% of those were over the age of 55. It gets worse. A startling 95% of my callers made insinuations, and some overtly, that they believe in a god. My first thought, " Then why are you calling me? The Bible explicitly forbids this behavior." Also, over 95% of my callers truly believed that I was psychic. Some even made reference to God giving me this ability as a gift, and that I should use it often. Of course the truth is that the callers had given me plenty information about themselves. Even them not speaking gave subtle clues that any observant person would pick up on. Breathing, background noise, pauses, interjections, tone of voice. All these factors play a role. I guessed rather easily whether someone had children, were married, dying, or ill. Even the sex of their children I guessed. (Hey, you've only got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right, so what did I have to lose?) No special powers here though. It was all done utilizing reason, probability, and luck. Is it by chance that I guessed that a man was dating a woman who's name begun with an "M"? Not at all. He told me. Part of his reading went as follows:
Psychic: "I don't know why, but I see someone in your life."
Gullible 1: "Really, what do you see?"
Psychic: "I see someone whose name starts with an "M" in your life."
Gullible 1: "Wow," (clue #1) "Uhhh, where did that come from?"
Psychic: (Utilizing clue #1 to suppress doubt) "I don't know, I'm certain (now I am) that someone whose name starts with an "M" will be an important factor in your life."
Gullible 1: "That's amazing! I'm dating a woman named Martha."
At this point I could have told him anything, true or false. It doesn't matter what I say at this point because hey, I'm psychic. Did I simply make a good guess? Darn right I did, but a very ambiguous one at that. He could have easily applied the letter "M" to anything. He began to assist me in trying to discover what the significance of the letter "M" was. Even if the "M" didn't pertain to his past or present, I could have easily transferred it to his future. Either way, I win. I'm psychic remember?
Another reading went as follows:
Fooled again: "Are my boyfriend and I going to stay together?" (Kind of obvious there's a problem if she's asking)
Psychic: "I sense troubling waters up ahead. I hear arguments…." (pause…..)
Fooled again: "Well, yeah (surprised) we've been arguing a lot lately." (No….really???)
Psychic: "I see some children here."
Fooled again: "Yeah, we have a daughter." (I later discovered that her boyfriend has a son that visits from time to time. This added more credibility.)
Psychic: "I sense some infidelity here……"(long pause)
Fooled again: "(chuckling) "Really…" (pause again)…..(quivering) "Hmmmm…."
A long pause generally denotes personal reflection. She obviously was wondering whether I knew if it was her or not. If she were guilt free she would have quickly responded with: "Who is he cheating on me with?" "Do I know her?" However, she didn't, so I saw the hole and went for it.
Psychic: (concerned) "You've cheated on him haven't you?"
Fooled again: "Oh, my god!!!! How did you know that?"
I so badly wanted to say, "I didn't, you just told me idiot!" Needless to say that at this point she was convinced. She stayed on the phone with me for a complete hour. Let's see, $4.99 a minute times 60 is, well, you do the math. Eventually, I began to feel awful perpetuating such an obvious fraud, especially since mysticism goes against everything I support. So as a result I quit. I regret that I didn't tell these people after the reading that it was all trickery and psychological games. Money silenced me. I'm elated that I can now tell this story and be an opponent of mysticism.
Benjamin W. Kratz wrote:
The reason that I know this and can tell you about it is that I would not be here today if It was not the will of God. I should be dead right now but it was not my time. All through my life he has kept me from harm. I was in a car accident at the age of five where a manual typewriter hit me in the head and put me in the hospital with a nice crack in my skull. I was supposed to die according to the doctors but I am here. See, my mother was a strong christian and believed in the healing power of the gracious God above and prayed for my health. I am here becaus of God's love.
I don't want to rain on your parade here, but I don't think surviving a brutal accident proves the existance of God. I don't believe in God in any way shape or form, and I am one of the people that you are fairly sure are going to burn in hell for my sins. I was in a terrible motorcycle accident, and as they wheeled me in to the operating room the doctor told me that nobody who had seen me could believe I was still alive, and that I still had my leg intact. My helmet came off in the crash and I hit the car, was knocked into oncoming traffic and run over again by the car--all this without a helmet.
I still have my leg, although I will always use a cane, but the doctors never got over the fact that I lived through an accident such as that, and even more that I can still walk. Nobody prayed for me. According to you I am an unrepentant sinner, and yet I managed to make it through all by myself, with a lot of help from medical Science. These things just happen...nobody will ever know why you and I survived our accidents, and somebody else slips in the bathtub and gets killed. It doesn't prove or disprove the existance of God. It just proves that life is strange, and sometimes unfair.
Bob Kovsky wrote:
There are matters of fact that are not susceptible of proof by logic or scientific method. In my opinion, "science" in the form that motivates your questions has a misplaced certainty and a limited domain of application.
But you claimed that said proof was by observation of faith in your life, not by logic or scientific method. How is this "faith" method of proof discernable from the "self-delusion" method of proof?
Cheers,
Craig
Phil Weingart writes:
Personally, I've never heard an argument for the existence of the Christian God which is compelling, apart from "I met Him."
But how compelling should this "argument" be, not just for the unbeliever (who presumably has not had the experience) but even for the person who has had the experience?
First of all, as an argument for the _Christian_ God this seems awfully suspect, b/c _lots_ of people from all sorts of different religious backgrounds have had religious experiences, which they experience and interpret interms of their own belief systems. Catholics feel the presence of the Virgin Mary, Buddhists a hint of not-self, etc. Isn't it suspicious that people who were raised as Christians and subsequently have religious experiences interpret them in terms "meeting Christ," whereas people raised in Hindu families have experiences structured in Hindu terms?
Thus, even if one grants that there was some sort of genuine contact with the divine or the transcendent, the claim that one has specifically had an experience of "meeting Jesus" can be more plausibly explained in sociological or psychological terms rather than assuming that the cause of the experience was Jesus the Christ.
But even as an argument for the existence of the divine, I'm wary. For many years, I talked to people to find out what "faith" was, and many gave an answer akin to Phil's: faith is based upon a special sort of experience that one has, and an openness to accepting it. I thought that perhaps there was something to this; maybe (some) believers had a special sort of experience that I had not.
Now I'm more inclined to say that there is no fundamental difference in the _experiences_that we have, but in the way we interpret or "take" the experience, based upon one's beliefs. For instance, several years ago a friend and I walked outside together after dinner, and there was a simply _glorious_ sunset spread out before us--bands of red, orange, pink and purple stretching up from the horizon.
She said to me afterwards, "How can you see that and say that there is no God?" She also said that she felt the presence of God when she saw the sunset, saw his majesty. Now I have no doubt about the sincerity of her report. But was there anything in her experience fundamentally different than in mine; did she have access to something I did not? I think not. Instead, b/c of her devout belief in God, she saw (and experienced) the beautiful sunset in terms of the glory of God, whereas I did not.
But then again, I could be wrong.
Tim O'Keefe
Subject: Response to propaganda
A number of the Christian organizations on our campus have had displays up in the, well, student union (I guess you would call it that--for some reason we never do) for Holy Week, and handing out literature. They have a box for responses, so I decided to write a detailed response to some of their literature. I am including a copy of my response below.
The piece I chose was a list of questions intended to get one thinking about some of the important issues of life, and then about Christ as a possible answer. I tried to demonstrate in my response that one could answer the questions just as well or even better without God and Christ, then in turn asked them some questions which I hope may plant some seeds of doubt. I have usd many of the ideas we have discussed here; specific thanks should go to Larry Loen, for example, for the God/Satan thing.
--BEGIN INCLUDED MESSAGE--
*A thoughtful atheist's response to "Now let me ask you something . . . "*
Would you say you live your day to day life as if you believed that God exists or as if you didn't?
As if I didn't, because I don't.
How do you explain all the suffering and evil in the world?
It comes from all kinds of causes; no single explanation is sufficient. People suffer and die from cancer because sometimes our own cells mutate into malignant forms that our immune systems can't handle. People suffer and drown in floods because it sometimes rains more than they were prepared for, more than had rained there for 500 years. People suffer and die in rapes, muggings, murders, wars, etc. because people are diverse and have diverse interests, and sometimes when those interests come into conflict the social mechanisms that exist are not adequate to resolve them.
How do you explain the universe as you find it? It's [sic] origin?
I explain the universe as I find it, i.e. one piece at a time. When I discover that some belief is false, I discard it. When I discover that some belief doesn't appear to be false, I hang on to it until I can prove otherwise. I can't explain the universe's origin (if indeed it had one--read Stephen Hawking) completely yet, but that doesn't mean that I should seize onto any answer someone gives me without asking for their supporting evidence. Sometimes the most truthful answer to a question is "I don't know yet". There's no shame in that.
How do you explain the potential for good and evil in human nature?
Without a precise definition of evil I can't really answer this question, because I'm not sure what it means. If you want to know how I explain the suffering and harm human beings cause each other, see two questions back.
What is the basis of your ethical system? What do you rest your convictions on?
I try to obey the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is sometimes hard to apply because not all people want the same things done unto them. You could phrase it "Do unto others as you imagine you would wish to be done unto, if you were they"; that's more awkward, but it more accurately points up the difficulty of getting into the other person's head. What's my basis for behaving that way? Because I believe we would all get along better if everyone followed the Golden Rule. Read up on what game theorists call "The Prisoner's Dilemma" for more on this.
When you do something you consider wrong, do you feel guilty? How do you deal with guilty feelings? Do you ever feel a need for forgiveness?
Of course I feel guilty when I do something I think is wrong. I deal with guilty feelings by sharing them with those close to me and talking them through. Eventually I am usually able to forgive myself, which for many people is the hardest forgiveness to find.
Where do you think the idea of God comes from?
From the need of human beings for answers, and from some human beings' unwillingness to accept that they can't find (or haven't yet found) all the answers they would like.
As you look at human history from a moral perspective, what do you think of the progress of mankind?
Again, this is difficult to answer without a precise definition of "moral". If you mean "Have human beings learned to keep from hurting each other?" I would say some progress has been made, but not much.
What is you[r] purpose in life? What do you find worth living for?
My purpose in life is to try to make the world a better place, fuller in truth, beauty, and happiness, than it would have been had I not existed. One of the things I do toward that end is to point out careless thinking whenever I find it, because many of the great tragedies of human history, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust, happened because too many people accepted unquestioningly what people in authority told them.
The New Testament is a book that changed the course of history. Have you ever seriously read any portions of it?
Yes. It is a good book, but not a perfect one. Compare Luke 3:23-38 with Matthew 1:1-17, or Luke 12:47 with Luke 6:29. When the "word of God" conflicts with itself, which version does a believer believe? And if you choose to accept one and reject the other, then you're relying on human wisdom, not God's. Which I would encourage.
What do you make of Jesus Christ?
I doubt that he actually existed; more likely he is a myth, as his story shares many elements with the other great myths of the world. The dying and resurrected God, for example, is a common thread running through the Egyptian sun god (Ra, I think? or Osiris) through the Persians (Mithra) to the Norse gods (Odin), and on and on. Read Joseph Campbell for more on that. However, assuming he did exist and is depicted reasonably accurately in the New Testament, I think he was a man of wisdom and compassion, possibly with some delusions of grandeur (if you believe those parts of the N.T.), but who would certainly be appalled at many of the things that have been done in his name since he left.
*Now let me ask _you_ some things.*
According to Christian belief:
If evil is the result of free will, and free will is necessary for human beings to freely worship God, does that mean that God desires our worship more than he hates evil? What would you think of a human being who desired something, anything, more than he hated evil?
Does God know what a being with free will is going to do in the future? If so, why did he create people who had free will but that he knew would choose not to worship him--just to torture them in hell? If not, how could Christ foretell Peter's threefold denial, for example?
Will there be free will in heaven, after Judgement Day? If not, how could those who go to heaven freely worship God? If so, why couldn't some of them fall from grace, as happened before, and start the whole mess over again?
How do explain the fact that the Bible confuses the two greatest opposites there are, God and Satan, in II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21? If you can explain it, have you ever expended similar effort attempting to understand, say the Koran? Can you find so great an inconsistency in the Koran?
Are the words of II Kings 2:23-24, or Psalm 137:8-9, the words of a just, loving God? We condemn Herod for the slaughter of innocents.
Do christians really love God or do they just love what he has to offer? You don't love your parents because of what they have to offer you do you? Of course not. But I'll bet that if the God of the Christian Bible Proclaimed that he wanted people to love him for himself and that he had absolutely no reward for anyone after they die, then I'll bet the Bible wouldn't be anymore popular than reruns of Little House.
Have a nice day. :)
Subject: Some Notes I Made in my Stude Bible (Mark) (Long)
1:2 There is no such comment in Isaiah - it doesn't exist!
3:5 Jesus gets angry, despite his statement in Matt. 5:2, that "anyone who is angry with his brother shall be judged."
3:20-30 Jesus reacted with noticeable anger to the accusation of being demon-possessed, but in Matt 5:22 he preached against anger.
3:29 What about forgiveness?
4:1 Jesus repeatedly taught the end of the world was near.
5:1-13 It certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill to the sea. You must remember that he was omnipotent, and he could have made the devils simply go away; but he chooses to send them into the pigs.
6:13-14 The gospels teach that Jesus was a public figure known throughout the regions of Judea and Galilee. Therefore, it is unexpected that Josephus mentioned him at most once in passing while mentioning other Messianic figures and John the Baptist in greater detail.
7:27 Equating gentile neighbors with "dogs" is hardly how one follows the Golden Rule.
7:31 This would be like going to Baton Rouge, Louisiana from Alexandra, LA by traveling through Shreveport and Orleans Parish. Geographically, that's a tremendous oops! item. Both Tyre and Sidon are on the coast of Lebanon, Tyre is NW of the Sea of Galilee, and Sidon is north of Tyre! That's certainly going the long way around to reach the sea of Galilee from Tyre. But it gets worse. According to a map of the first-century Middle East, a coastal road ran south from Sidon to Tyre, then branched off with a road going to the Sea of Galilee. You almost could not get from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee except by going through Tyre, not the other way around. Whoever wrote Mark did not know anything about the geography of the Middle East and certainly was not a disciple of Jesus.
8:23 Here we are told Jesus heals a blind man by spitting on his eyes. But he did not eliminate blindness. He has been of less value to the world as a healer than Pasteur, Lister, Koch, or Walter Reed.
8:29-30 Jesus repeatedly taught that the end of the world was near.
9:42-48 (Russell) I say that I think all this doctrine, that hell fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine for cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take him as his chroniclers represent him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.
10:1-10:12 Jesus thought that divorce is wrong, and that to remarry is adultery. [see also Luke 16:18]
10:27 If all things are possible for God, then why was Jesus unable to perform miracles when others lacked faith? [Matt 13:58; Mark 6:5]
11:12-14 Jesus angrily curses the fig tree even though he spoke against anger (Matt 5:22)
11:15 Although Jesus preached nonresistance to evil he did not always practice it. He made no effort to win over the wrongdoers by love.
11:24 This promise has not been fulfilled. See Matt 21:21-22.
13:24-30 Clearly, that generation passed away long ago and the predicted occurrences never happened.
15:25 Jesus was crucified at the third hour, yet he was standing before Pilate at the sixth hour (John 19:14) when he should have been hanging on the cross.
16:6-7 contradicts Matt 28:8; Luke 24:9; John 20:2. Only Mark says the women told no one. Who is right? Were Matthew, Luke, and John right, or was Mark? Did they tell anyone what they had seen or didn't they? (16:9-11 doesn't count because it was not in the original MS) The fundamentalists can take their pick, but it doesn't matter. The resurrection accounts are not inerrant.
[note I ommitted most of the contradictions in the resurrection accounts b/c I thought that would be rehash]
16:17-18 Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guide book for life.
Jeff Lowder
I thought I'd share something interesting about my brain that might explain a little about the thoughts of Christians.
Anyways, it all begins with my time in the Navy. During the long sea tours, the favorite pastime was just to hang out and tell "sea stories" to each other, which basically just means shooting the bull about places you've been and things you've done while in the Navy.
Now, the old joke goes:
Q: What's the difference between a fairy tale and a sea story?
A: A fairy tale starts with "Once upon a time". A sea story starts with "This is a no-shitter".
The point being that honesty should always take a backseat to imagination in the telling of sea stories.
Having a vivid imagination, I could deal with this. My stories grew with every telling, and eventually I could give vivid descriptions of incidents that had only a tiny kernel of truth behind them.
The really interesting part is that, now, I actually have memories of these incidents that never happened. I am quite aware that these are false memories, but the memories are there nonetheless.
I think this shows how continuous self-reinforcement can actually get you to believe in a past that never happenned. For me, it's pretty easy to see how many Christians can actually believe that they were horrible, immoral people before their conversion, or how a sleazy therapist can get someone to believe that they were sexually abused as a child.
--
Greg Bernath
From (Damion Schubert):
(Damion Schubert) wrote:
Let's take a parable that was on a oft-crossposted thread regarding 'the skull of jesus'. You're in love with a girl, and you want her to love you back. Which is the best course of action?
A) You force her to love you.
B) You allow her to love you of her own volition.
I think you would agree with me that (b) was the better option. But this is not what your diety has done. He has chosen a third option:
C) You allow her to love you of her own volition, and when she chooses not to comply, you lock her in the basement.
This is not a loving attitude. This is not a forgiving attitude. And this whole conception of Christian heaven or hell has nothing at all to do with justice, and everything to do with the ego stroking of one being.
Just think about it
A Reply From Bob.
(Bob Felts) says:
I did. Your analogy is a false one. What actually happens is B) - you allow her to love you of her own volition.
To finish the analogy, she decides not too. Later, she looks at her circumstances and finds that she's miserable. Perhaps the man she did decide to marry is an alcoholic. And she hears from her friends that the suitor that was rejected was really far more wonderful than she ever imagined. But for her, it's too late. She already made her decision.
Thread continued as a reply from the originator, Damion Schubert
He says..
NO -- you seem to miss the entire analogy. This girl chooses not to love me. There is one possible outcome. She ends up in the dungeon. Sure, she ends up in the dungeon in 10 years time instead of right now, but she ends up in the dungeon.
And if, in that ten years time, what if she finds someone else? It's entirely possible that she is happy with that person -- entirely possible that she is as happy as she is with me. (you might find this hard to believe, but there are millions of truly content non-christians in the world). It makes no difference. Time passes, I catch her, I say 'I told you so," and I lock her in the dungeon.
David Hooper asked:
"God did it" is a non-explanation?
Right. Things like:
God did it.
God made it that way.
God wants it that way.
are all non-explanations, because they don't answer what people want to know. To see what I mean, suppose you were taking a science test and the professor asked one of the following questions:
Why don't rocks float?
Why don't humans regrow missing limbs?
Why do people die when suffocated?
Why don't neutrons carry a charge?
Why do people get scurvy?
What kind of grade should you earn for answering `Because God made them that way'? What knowledge does that answer demonstrate?
Suppose your son had symptoms of scurvy, and you were concerned about him, and you took him to a doctor. Knowing what causes a problem may be of some help in curing it, so you ask the doctor "Why do people get scurvy?" The doctor replies "Because God made them that way." Has he told you anything that will help you figure out a course of treatment? Nope. His answer may be true, but it's not going to help anyone avoid getting scurvy.
Additionally, note that if people accepted `Because God made them that way' as the answer to these (and other) questions, we'd be lacking quite a bit of the knowledge and technology we now have. Anyone who has ever had a loved one's life saved by a surgical procedure will tell you that there are real benefits to scientific advances. They wouldn't have been possible if people had stopped investigating the created world and said `Because God made them that way'.
My brother Donald had open-heart surgery some years ago: his rib cage cut open, a small piece of his heart sliced away, the gap stitched closed, and all of his innards put back the way they were. I for one am quite pleased that this was possible, and that those in the past were able to understand that "God did it" was not a useful answer to medical questions.
In many cases, the answers to biological questions -- the `why' that people are after -- can be answered by looking at the evolutionary history of the creatures in question. Those questions cannot be answered by "God did it". It may be correct on some level, but it lacks both predictive power and useful detail.
I will also observe that Mr Hooper's remarks reflect an ignorance of the Holy Scriptures, which specifically commend research and investigation. You might see, for example, Proverbs 25:2.
Darren F Provine
"(BigDiscusser)"wrote in message
Jesus helps the love to be less selfish--the less selfish, the better ( more like God's love).
Thou shalt have no other gods before ME!
I ..create darkness.
I...create evil.
I ...do all these things, and there is no other! Just ME!
Its all about ME baby!
Sacrifice unto ME!
Kill your animals and even your own children if I do wish it.
And sing your praises unto ME alone!
Devote your lives to ME! ME I say!
ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!
Did you mean THAT unselfish god, Jo-Jean?
Where was God on 0911?
This is wonderful, the best essay I've read on the September 11 attack...
For anyone who thinks that God was on vacation on September 11th, this should change your mind. For those of you that know that God was busy on Tuesday, this will confirm it.
Dear Family and Friends,
I had a very dear friend question my faith in God right after the terrorist attack on America. Her question was simply put, "Where is your God today?" She was very hurt, as all Americans were, so I tried not to react defensively. Since that moment I have prayed and grieved over the disastrous events. However, I believe I have the answer. I know where my God was the morning of September 11, 2001! He was very busy.
Yep. He was giving Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell a terrific fundraising opportunity.
First of all, he was trying to discourage anyone from taking this flight. Those four flights together held over 1000 passengers and there were only 266 aboard.
And why did he curse those 266 innocent people with death?
He was on 4 commercial flights giving terrified passengers the ability to stay calm. Not one of the family members who was called by a loved one on one of the hijacked planes said that passengers were screaming in the background. On one of the flights He was giving strength to passengers to try to overtake the hijackers.
And what did he curse those other three planes?
To quote Meat Loaf, two outta three ain't bad, and the hijackers beat that by 8.4%.
He was busy trying to create obstacles for employees at the World Trade Center. After all, only around 20,000 were at the towers when the first jet hit. Since the buildings hold over 50,000 workers, this was a miracle in itself. How many of the people who were employed at the WTC told the media that they were late for work or they had traffic delays?
No more than on any other day. Are you aware of some 30,000-person traffic jam that morning that magically went unreported?
He was holding up 2 - 110-story buildings so that 2/3 of the workers could get out.
Then your god was wasting his energy. He could've saved both buildings with *much* less effort by simply putting out the fires.
Funny how an omnipotent god would spend all of his strength holding up a million-ton building, not realizing that simply blowing out the fire would solve the problem with a small fraction of effort.
I was so amazed that the top of the towers didn't topple when the jets impacted.
That's because you know nothing of structural engineering. Those buildings were designed to stand in the face of much greater force than a jumbo jet impact. The reasons the buildings fell was because the resulting fires eventually weakened the main supporting girders, not because of the impact. If the fires could have been controlled, the buildings would still be standing today and the death toll would've been much lower.
Don't feel bad, though. Your god apparently didn't realize that either.
Although this is without a doubt the worst thing I have seen in my life, I can see God's miracles in every bit of it.
Of course you do. That's because your god is the ultimate televangelist. You give him credit for everything good, ignore everything bad, and praise him despite the fact that his works are indistinguishable from randomness.
I keep thinking about my friend and praying for her every chance I have. I can't imagine going through such a difficult time and not believing in God. Life would be hopeless.
Yep. And if the towers fell with all 20,000 people in 'em, it would've been a miracle that the towers didn't topple and take out several city blocks.
. . .and if the towers did topple and take out several city blocks, it would've been a miracle that they didn't rupture every gas and water line in the city, thus making the whole island of Manhattan inhospitable.
. . .and if the island were rendered inhospitable, it would've been a miracle that it didn't cause power surges through the other five boroughs, plunging millions of people into darkness.
. . .and if power surges went through the entire five boroughs, plunging millions into darkness, it would've been a miracle that NORAD didn't overreact and fire ICBM's at New York.
. . .and if ICBM's landed on New York, it would've been a miracle that they were air-bursts and that the island would be hospitable again in a hundred years instead of a thousand.
Face it, kids. Your give your god props for everything good and blame him for nothing bad. No matter how big the disaster is or how bad the loss of life, you will insist that it was your god that kept things from getting worse.
-
John Hattan
zomby woof wrote:
It makes absolutely no sense when peolpe say "What kind of God would (blah blah)." If god does exist, it is infinitely above us, and therefore beyond our judgement.
I have absolutely no problem with this position, so long as you understand that such statements as "God is good" and "God is just" are also judgements and, hence, unwarranted.
To proclaim that God is so far beyond humans as to be unknowable is to proclaim that God is an alien entity. One could argue for the worship of such a being on the basis of pragmatism (if I don't worship it, it'll stomp me [1]), but I am perplexed by the notion that one could proclaim love for such a being. I suppose that it's possible to love anything, but loving that which is explicitly unknowable seems to me to be an especially perverse manifestation of the feeling.
Andrew Lias
I have seen 'deliverance' or 'spiritual warfare' in person. I saw it numerous times while attending the Assemblies of God church, and while attending their Bible College in Waxahachie TX. I have heard Bob larson rail against the demonic forces of hell on the radio and on TV. I have seen specials on TLC and A&E concerning possession. A rather glaring conundrum has caught my eye.
The 'demons' are stupid.
The claim here is that a believer (Oddly enough, most of the possessed are church-goers) is supposedly under the control of a demon, an eons-old angelic being that rebelled against it's creator and has existed since before man. It has wondered the earth for ages, dealing with all cultures and languages, all belief systems and all conflicts.
It knows deception more fully then anything we can grasp and it seeks to undermine the faith of christians, furthering it's master's charge to steal, kill and destroy.
Yet, these 'demons' allow their victims to attend church, they scream out in public and reveal themselves, they all have names concerning human emotions and failings ( I am hate, I am hunger, I am arrogance, etc.) which would indicate that THE Demon of Hate or whatever is inhabiting this blue-collar worker from Borger, TX.
Most telling of all, these 'demons' never strike out, or respond to the gathered christians with any real malice or intelligence. They cuss and spit and scream and refuse, but they never seem to engage in real verbal assault, throwing accusations of past failings back at the christians, quoting scripture, responding in ancient languages to confuse the faithful, asking the same uncomfortable questions atheists do.
It responds with modern church-speak, not with the terminology one would expect of a creature that might have actually witnessed the death of jesus, the flood, the torments of Job or the rise of christianity. They refrain from profanity in large public forums and even wait for commercial breaks with Bob larson, sitting patiently on the phone waiting for the "warrior of God" to come back on the air. The possessed don't throw up horseshoe nails and lengths of chain like they used to. They don't even manifest supernatural ability anymore.
Apparently, some denominations can face the Devil down with ease, but a skeptic is some scary shit.
SMB
Well, it was a good episode of Atheist Experience on cable access last Sunday. We had a theist call in and start nosing around the question of where atheists get their morals. When he asked why atheists aren't out raping and killing because their morals are subjective and so anything goes, we answered by asking him if he would be out raping and killing if he didn't have his divine moral code. He quite innocently answered yes, as if there were no other answer imaginable. I can only assume that the threat of hell is the only thing holding this guy back from doing what he would rather do which is raping and killing.
This guy was completely oblivious to the fact that he was talking to a group of people who didn't follow his divine moral code, and the only person who wanted to rape and kill was the Christian. WTF!
On alt.atheism, we've had many theists ask the same question about our morals, and they all ask it as if raping and killing is what they would rather be doing if only god's pesky commandments weren't in the way.
Why would they rather be raping and killing? Do they think they would enjoy it? I have no fucking idea, but it doesn't speak well of them.
Anyway, the atheist host and co-host responded by staring at each other in horror, and then begging the guy to stay religious.
All I can do is wonder how many other Christians share a burning desire to rape and kill...
--
Denis Loubet
Prophecies weren't meant to predict the future. The word originally meant "divinely inspired speech." Not until 1300 did it come to mean "predicting future events." [Oxford English Dictionary]
Besides, there are lots of mundane ways to predict the future:
Make the wording sufficiently vague that, with proper interpretation, it could apply to practically anything.
Predict something which has already happened.
Rewrite history to say that your prediction was actually fulfilled.
Give no time limit for the prediction.
Predict something which is extremely likely to occur.
Make so many predictions one of them is bound to occur. Later, edit out those that failed.
Predict something that you yourself can cause to happen.
All of the predictions in the bible can be fit into one or more of these categories.
If you believe in the possibility of "losing your salvation" (as opposed to "once saved, always saved"), then after someone is saved, they should be put to death to eliminate the possibility that they'll "fall away."
One practical consideration is, of course, "who's going to keep killing the babies if all Christians and Christian converts die?" Excellent question.
I would recommend some kind of evaluation process when someone converts on the likelihood that they'll "fall away" vs. their usefulness as a converter-murderer. You would have to balance these needs carefully to insure that the gospel keeps spreading until the earth is de-populated and everyone is in heaven (aside from people who died while still unsaved, of course.)
Other practical considerations:
*Murder of an unbeliever is much more serious than murder of a believer, since you send them to hell. Criminal statues should be changed to reflect this.
*Abortion should be encouraged since the preborn infants will instantly go to heaven and they can't "fall away." Special recognition should be given to abortion providers for the number of souls they save on an annual basis.
remailed wrote:
Why do Atheists hate God so much?
We don't. It's pointless to hate something that doesn't exist.
I dont believe in pink fairies yet I dont extract my energy silencing fairies?
I wouldn't have a problem if you did believe in pink fairies. Now if you tried to shove those beliefs down my throat, by, say, insisting that the US Pledge of allegiance include the line "one nation, under pink fairies", or tried to get the idea that pink fairies magicked the world into existence 6000 years ago taught in science class, or tried to imply that people who don't believe in pink fairies are evil, or can't be good citizens, that would be another matter entirely. I'd also have a problem if you flew airplanes into skyscrapers shouting "pink fairies are great", kidnaped teenagers because pink fairies told you to marry them, or let a child die because pink fairies forbid blood transfusions.
Of course, what would be *really* scary, and incredibly dangerous, would be a US President thinking he's been chosen by pink fairies to rid the world of evil. Can you imagine the potentially catastrophic consequences of such a delusion? Why, he could lead the US to the brink of an unprovoked war that the vast majority of the world opposes, including many of his own fellow Americans, and effectively wreck both NATO and the UN in the process, not to mention potentially provoking a full-blown Middle East-wide conflagration. Of course, we can take comfort that the American people would never elect someone who operates under such a dangerous delusion, can't we?
Can anyone of the intelligent ones in here answer this without attacking the author?
Yes. Your turn.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:35:42 -0400, RyanN wrote:
Imagine if you will, getting hit by a bus tommorow. Floating up through the clouds and standing before almighty god himself.
Will you not feel a bit stupid after spending all those years arguing against him, after being so vocal in your certainty that he is not real? Would you not feel like a total idiot?
Obviously IF the theist is wrong, he faces no such humiliation...
Not at all. Given the lack of physical evidence of His existence, it is obvious that, if He exists, He doesn't *want* us to believe in Him.
Imagine how stupid the theist will feel, if God berates him for believing such an outlandish story without a shred of evidence to support it.
--
Mark A
What should be in the Bible, but isn't?
Here we are. Human beings. Perhaps 0.01% of us are psychotic enough to hear imaginary voices in our heads, and every one of us has irrational dreams, and yet these erratic schemes are selected by an "all powerful" God for the delivery of His "very important" messages. Was this the best He could do? How do we verify the real messages and ignore the false ones?
Why would God hide and distort the truth? Why wouldn't the Bible say authoritatively that Creation took a very long time? Why pretend it was six days? We know now that it took a very long time.
Why does the Bible go on about crafting altars of shittem wood and the slaying of neighbors? What is the importance of that? Why wouldn't the Bible mention that stars are distant suns, or mention that the earth circles the sun? Or mention that the heart pumps the blood, or that the brain is where thinking occurs? Why is it more concerned about circumcision, a useless procedure, than teaching basic dental hygiene, or basic sanitation, or basic first aid? Great droning passages of labyrinthine and cryptic moral lessons, in between the passages where God commands that someone be killed ruthlessly. No mention that boiling water makes it safe? No mention that epilepsy is merely a physical disorder? No mention that irrigation is more reliable than waiting for rain? A Boy Scout manual contains more wisdom than the Bible does. Just imagine how many millions of lives could have been saved throughout human history if the Bible had one tiny passage on the importance of washing your hands with soap and water. Imagine how much suffering could have been averted if it had had even one clear-cut condemnation of human slavery. And - for the pro-lifers - imagine how much easier your job would be if it had even one passage explicitly condemning abortion.
REPLY BY THE RECEIVER: The things you mention are not in the Bible for one very important reason. That reason being that we, as a human race, would and will discover all of the necessary things to sustain life on this planet. The Bible talks of things of a higher intelligence, not of how to dress a razor cut.
These writings by much better writers should explain, "Why I'm An Atheist".
. You can click on the "Writings" link on the left pane to view the above content (and updates, if any).
