SIMPLE FACTS THAT PROVE NO GODS EXIST

[Bill M]

has ever heard from or seen any God. It never talks or communicates directly
with us or appears to us. Claims by thousands of errant preachers, priests
and other religious leaders

that they communicate with gods are pure unsubstantiated claims - not
objective verifiable evidence.



There are close to 1,000 different Gods believed in by mankind. Why would
any real God permit all these fakes and confusion?



If there was an all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
creator, why did it create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions,
Floods, Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases
and serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect
and punish mankind indiscriminately. Over two million totally innocent
children die of starvation every year. Why punish millions of INNOCENT
CHILDREN in this horrible way?


Why does he permit millions of both young and old of all religious
persuasions to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? If there was an
all powerful and caring god would it permit totally "innocent children" to
die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed brain,
deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and others with
super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others pauper poor?
Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a miserable and
devastating old age regardless of their religious affiliation?



The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods!

[Annie]

I have a painting on my wall. But there was no painter. I know this
because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him,
or hear him, or feel him. I live in a building. But there was no
builder. I know this because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell
him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel him. I am part of this
universe. But there was no Creator. I know this because I can not see
him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel
him.

Yet the evidence of all three abound. The existance of a painting
proves there was a painter. The existance of a building proves there
was a builder. The existance of a universe proves there was a Creator!

[Bill M]

Post by Annie
I have a painting on my wall. But there was no painter. I know this
because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him,
or hear him, or feel him. I live in a building. But there was no
builder. I know this because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell
him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel him. I am part of this
universe. But there was no Creator. I know this because I can not see
him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel
him.
Yet the evidence of all three abound. The existance of a painting
proves there was a painter. The existance of a building proves there
was a builder. The existance of a universe proves there was a Creator!

No, the existence of the Universe is proof the Universe exists - nothing
more.

We have actually seen painters paint, We have seen buildings being built.
We know
they exist and how they were created.

Go back to school and learn a little basic logic.

[fred]

Post by Bill M

Post by Annie
I have a painting on my wall. But there was no painter. I know this
because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him,
or hear him, or feel him. I live in a building. But there was no
builder. I know this because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell
him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel him. I am part of this
universe. But there was no Creator. I know this because I can not see
him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel
him.
Yet the evidence of all three abound. The existance of a painting
proves there was a painter. The existance of a building proves there
was a builder. The existance of a universe proves there was a Creator!

No, the existence of the Universe is proof the Universe exists - nothing
more.

The existance of the universe begs the question as to whether or not
the universe was created. But while Christians cannot verify that a
God did create the universe by means of repeatable, scientific method
based experiments, you evidently choose to ignore that neither have
people of your ilk been able to verify by means of proper scientific
experimentation that a God didn't create the universe.

So, while Christians, unlike you, are at least up front that their
beliefs in God are based on faith, you can take your anti-God
sophistry home until you can substantiate your "facts" that God does
not exist with repeatable, scientific method base experiments.

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by fred

Post by Bill M

Post by Annie
I have a painting on my wall. But there was no painter. I know this
because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him,
or hear him, or feel him. I live in a building. But there was no
builder. I know this because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell
him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel him. I am part of this
universe. But there was no Creator. I know this because I can not see
him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel
him.
Yet the evidence of all three abound. The existance of a painting
proves there was a painter. The existance of a building proves there
was a builder. The existance of a universe proves there was a Creator!

No, the existence of the Universe is proof the Universe exists - nothing
more.

The existance of the universe begs the question as to whether or not
the universe was created. But while Christians cannot verify that a
God did create the universe by means of repeatable, scientific method
based experiments, you evidently choose to ignore that neither have
people of your ilk been able to verify by means of proper scientific
experimentation that a God didn't create the universe.
So, while Christians, unlike you, are at least up front that their
beliefs in God are based on faith, you can take your anti-God
sophistry home until you can substantiate your "facts" that God does
not exist with repeatable, scientific method base experiments.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Science measures things within the parameters of this universe, not
things outside it.

However the fact that science relies on logical argument to prove it's
theories indicates a logical methodology in creating the universe,
which indicates intelligence.

Do you think, say Windows XP, could be created by a computer by pure
chance if it was given long enough, with the proviso that it had not
even one pre-existing program to begin with, and if the program
crashed, would the same computer repair the problem? That is of
course, ignoring the fact the computer has itself to be designed and
built to begin with.

To my mind, the DNA code is an example of intelligent programming.
Moreover the originator has the same philosophy of expediency as
humans ie. why re-invent the wheel, when you can use the same basic
chemical building blocks to create all life?

The Christian claim is that the designer and creator stepped into
human life at a point in history, to deal with the fact the morally
free agents were making a mess of it, and still make a mess of it for
that matter. And that's why we have a judgement, with the above
mentioned "personification of evil" as the jailer. God doesn't want
the job of punishing those who reject him - the devil doesn't mind in
the least, since he hates us with a passion. And that is why he
showed his gloating image in 9/11 - 3000 more of the human vermin were
about to be destroyed by his infernal art in manipulating human
thought and will.

There have been other warnings in the last century, often Marian. No
doubt you're aware of the "dancing of the sun" at Fatima in 1917.

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

The Miracle of the Sun

At each successive apparition, word of the events at Fatima spread
farther and wider, along with the story that the October apparition
would be particularly dramatic. The October miracle was predicted to
be one that everyone would see. The crowd that day was estimated at
70,000. Although the sun rose that day, soon dark clouds overshadowed
it and threatened a severe storm. At around 10:00 a.m., the rains
came. The pilgrims and the interested skeptics kept coming, however.

Noon came, and Lucia saw the flash that always preceded the vision of
Mary. As she arrived, the rains ceased and the sun began to come out.
The apparition of Mary settled over the tree as usual. Lucia inquired,
"What do you want of me?" Mary said, "I want to tell you that they
must build a chapel here in my honor; that I am the Lady of the
Rosary; that they continue to say the rosary every day. The war will
end and the soldiers will return to their homes soon."

Lucia asked Mary if she would grant some petitions, to which she
replied, "Some I will, others I will not. They must mend their lives,
ask forgiveness for their sins. Offend not Our Lord any more, for He
is already much offended." As Mary left, she opened her hands, which
emitted a flood of light. While she was rising, she pointed towards
the sun and the light gleaming from her hands brightened the sun
itself. Suddenly a cry of awe and wonderment came from the large
crowd. The sun became pale as the moon.

As the children were watching this, the crowd was enraptured by other
signs in the sky. As one witness said, "We could look at the sun with
ease. It did not bother [the eyes] at all. It seemed to be continually
fading and glowing in one fashion, then another. It threw shafts of
light one way and another, painting everything in different colors,
the people, the trees, the earth, even the air." Everyone stood still
and quiet, gazing at the sun. At a certain point, the sun stopped its
play of light and then started "dancing." It stopped again and then
again started dancing until it seemed to loosen itself from the skies
and fall upon the people. It was a moment of terrible suspense.

Dr. Almeida Garrett, professor of Coimbra, said, "The sun had broken
through the thick layer of clouds. It seemed to be drawing all eyes
and I saw it as a disc with a clean cut rim, luminous and shining, but
which did not hurt the eyes;. The clouds did not obscure the light of
the sun; one could fix one's eyes on this brazier of heat and light
without pain in the eyes or blinding of the retina. The sun's disc
spun around on itself in a mad whirl -- then, whirling wildly, seemed
to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the
earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. There were changes
of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun I noticed everything
around was becoming darkened. All the phenomena which I have described
were observed by me. It is for others to interpret and explain them."

As the sun appeared to hurl itself upon the crowd in a zigzag fashion,
the people in the crowd cried out in terror, believing they were going
to die. Some begged for mercy; others said the act of contrition. One
lady confessed her sins aloud. Eventually the sun stopped its sudden
dive and returned to its place in the sky. As the multitude sighed in
relief they realized that the miracle predicted by the children had
come to pass. Then they noticed that everything had suddenly dried
from the heavy rains earlier -- their clothes, the ground, everything!
Not only did the immediate crowd witness the miracle, but so did those
in adjoining villages. Although there were some variations in what
they saw, they all reported having seen something miraculous.

Incio Lourenco reported, "Near us was an unbeliever without religion,
who had spent the morning mocking the blockheads who had made all that
journey to Fatima to go and stare at a girl. I looked at him. He stood
as if paralyzed, thunderstruck, his eyes fixed on the sun. Then I saw
him tremble from head to foot, and raising his hands to heaven, he
fell on his knees in the mire shouting "Nossa Senhora! Nossa
Senhora!" (Our Lady! Our Lady!)

For those who might think that mass hallucination at the site produced
the spectacle, it should be noted that the miracle was seen by many
throughout the region, even as far away as 25 miles from Fatima, where
the poet Afonso Lopes Vieira also saw the miracle of the sun from his
house.

[Padraic Brown]

Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Do you think, say Windows XP, could be created by a computer by pure
chance if it was given long enough, with the proviso that it had not
even one pre-existing program to begin with, and if the program
crashed, would the same computer repair the problem? That is of
course, ignoring the fact the computer has itself to be designed and
built to begin with.

Frankly, I think _anything_ Micro$oft has ever come up with is as good
an example of "creation from random chaos" as we can get. I think a
computer, if left to its own devices (pun intended), could do a better
job.

Padraic

[Bill M]

Post by fred

Post by Bill M

Post by Annie
I have a painting on my wall. But there was no painter. I know this
because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him,
or hear him, or feel him. I live in a building. But there was no
builder. I know this because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell
him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel him. I am part of this
universe. But there was no Creator. I know this because I can not see
him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel
him.
Yet the evidence of all three abound. The existance of a painting
proves there was a painter. The existance of a building proves there
was a builder. The existance of a universe proves there was a Creator!

No, the existence of the Universe is proof the Universe exists - nothing
more.

The existance of the universe begs the question as to whether or not
the universe was created. But while Christians cannot verify that a
God did create the universe by means of repeatable, scientific method
based experiments, you evidently choose to ignore that neither have
people of your ilk been able to verify by means of proper scientific
experimentation that a God didn't create the universe.
So, while Christians, unlike you, are at least up front that their
beliefs in God are based on faith, you can take your anti-God
sophistry home until you can substantiate your "facts" that God does
not exist with repeatable, scientific method base experiments.

No, because I have never seen, heard or heard of many other sane persons
seeing
a real Santa Claus, I consider it logical to not believe any real Santa
Claus exists.

If because there is no objective verifiable evidence that a god exists you
believe that is
evidence that a god exists - dream on!

[bob young]

Post by Annie
I have a painting on my wall. But there was no painter. I know this
because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him,
or hear him, or feel him. I live in a building. But there was no
builder. I know this because I can not see him, or touch him, or smell
him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel him. I am part of this
universe. But there was no Creator. I know this because I can not see
him, or touch him, or smell him, or taste him, or hear him, or feel
him.
Yet the evidence of all three abound. The existance of a painting
proves there was a painter. The existance of a building proves there
was a builder. The existance of a universe proves there was a Creator!

Yes followers of imaginary gods are prone to believe anything
and use any silly rationale to try to prove that invisible 'thing'
is there!

Your cute post above proves nothing, but nice try
- It appears here many times in similar forms.

I wonder who first dreamed it up?

God perhaps?

No 'He' would have much more convincing ways were 'He' to exist - right?

[Ylog]

OK Bill...you have proved that you have tons of time on your hands. Your
Zeal for your religion is astounding. But will you accept it if I prove to
you that there is a God??

I have posted another thread on this....reply on that

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by Ylog
OK Bill...you have proved that you have tons of time on your hands. Your
Zeal for your religion is astounding. But will you accept it if I prove to
you that there is a God??
I have posted another thread on this....reply on that

I'm a Christian. I haven't always been. I can claim to have had
various sorts of "spiritual" experiences, most of which I find have
been shared by various other Christians when I've spoken or debated
(including by internet) with them.

I don't have any doubt there's a spiritual world, or spiritual beings,
nor do I doubt that God exists. I've had too many personal
experiences to disbelieve that. Unfortunately such experiences are
non transferable, nor could they they be possibly measured by
scientific methods.

I also believe there's a power of evil, which is quite personal, which
works in the world in a very potent way, which is why, I believe,
human history is so beset with violence and disruption, with barely a
day's peace from one century to another, and which hates humanity.

Yet I believe God is "good", despite suffering, religious violence,
war, torture, starvation, famine, injustice and all the other things
that seem to make a mockery of the claim. I suppose the ultimate
irony is that, speaking as a Christian, the powers of evil in this
world are so strong they crucified God in human form.

Exactly why all these sufferings are visited on the human race I don't
really know. It is what the Catholic Church would call "the mystery
of evil". Even the personal power of evil I mentioned was originally
created by a good God.

I suppose an equivalent situation might arise if you were to create a
very advanced robot. For one thing you would probably design it in
humanoid form, "in your image". For another you might want to give
this creature of yours absolutely free will, bearing in mind however
that you created it, and that it's hardwring and software are your own
work.

Let's play "Hypothetical", and suppose you determined to take your
hands off the creature, and really give it freedom. You do however
program it with certain moral ethics, and what you hope will be a
compassionate consideration for it's own kind and all your other
creatures.

What are you going to do however, if in the exercise of it's free
will, the humanoid robot decides to turn against you, and refuses to
be reconciled?

Destroy it, and start again? You'd probably find the very same
situation arising again sooner or later.

Somehow you've got to reprogram it, yet avoid damaging it's free
will. How would you do that?

[Mike]

Post by b***@dodo.com.au
I suppose an equivalent situation might arise if you were to create a
very advanced robot. For one thing you would probably design it in
humanoid form, "in your image". For another you might want to give
this creature of yours absolutely free will, bearing in mind however
that you created it, and that it's hardwring and software are your own
work.
Let's play "Hypothetical", and suppose you determined to take your
hands off the creature, and really give it freedom. You do however
program it with certain moral ethics, and what you hope will be a
compassionate consideration for it's own kind and all your other
creatures.
What are you going to do however, if in the exercise of it's free
will, the humanoid robot decides to turn against you, and refuses to
be reconciled?
Destroy it, and start again? You'd probably find the very same
situation arising again sooner or later.
Somehow you've got to reprogram it, yet avoid damaging it's free
will. How would you do that?

Does god have free will?

If "no" then we'll end it here (but a god with no free will is no god.)

If "yes" then "can god do evil"?

If "no" then it's possible for a being to have free will and yet not be
capable of evil so why aren't we the same?

If "yes" then "does god do evil"?

If "no" then (disregarding how you can tell that god can do evil if
he/she/it never does evil) it's possible for a being to have free will
and yet not do evil so why aren't we the same? (remember that the bible
says "ALL have sinned." I.e. ALL have done evil. Doesn't sound like
we're capable of never doing evil like god is.)

If "yes" then this god is as bad as we are so what gives him/her/it the
moral high ground here?

I.e. either it's possible for us to have free will and yet never do evil
(the same as god supposedly has/does) or your whole argument is hogwash.

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

which is it, 2 of every kind or 7 of every kind?
and what about taking termites on the ark?

HEY, ALL-KNOWING DUMBASS CHRISTIAN GOD, DO YOU THINK THAT TAKING TERMITES
ABOARD A WOODEN ARK IS A GREAT IDEA, YOU DUMBASS
FUCKING MORON?

AND PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT FUCKING USELESS PURPOSE FIRE ANTS SERVE.
WHY WERE THOSE ON THE ARK TO BE SAVED.

1.. Genesis 6:20
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of
creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
Genesis 6:19-21 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)
2.. Genesis 7:2
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate,
and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,


DO YOU CHRISTIAN NUTS STILL BELIEVE THIS BIBLE HORSESHIT?

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
which is it, 2 of every kind or 7 of every kind?
and what about taking termites on the ark?
HEY, ALL-KNOWING DUMBASS CHRISTIAN GOD, DO YOU THINK THAT TAKING TERMITES
ABOARD A WOODEN ARK IS A GREAT IDEA, YOU DUMBASS
FUCKING MORON?
AND PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT FUCKING USELESS PURPOSE FIRE ANTS SERVE.
WHY WERE THOSE ON THE ARK TO BE SAVED.
1.. Genesis 6:20
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of
creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
Genesis 6:19-21 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)
2.. Genesis 7:2
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate,
and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,
DO YOU CHRISTIAN NUTS STILL BELIEVE THIS BIBLE HORSESHIT?

As a Catholic I don't take every Biblical statement in the literal
sense. However termites do have a role to play in the ecosystem,
since they break down dead wood, which would otherwise just pile up
until destroyed by fire. Flies and maggots break down decomposing
matter, cockroaches likewise. The trouble comes when they invade our
artificial environment. Mind you, I can't think of anything good to
say about mosquitoes, although if they were ever exterminated, we'd
probably find out then what their critical roles are.

I do believe that a malign, highly intelligent spirit which we call
the devil exists however. I for one take the view that he decided to
mock us, humanity, when he arranged for his image to be shown in the
smoke of 9/11. Atheists will of course say it was merely a fortituous
pattern in the smoke, seized upon by Christian idiots as real. I
think it was real. By our understanding, the devil hates humanity.
He had just arranged for a handful of humans to murder nearly 3000 of
the hated vermin, quite horribly.

Moreover he knew that as a result the US would become embroiled in the
Middle East, leading to another 3000 deaths of serving personnel (with
more to come no doubt), unrequited violence in Iraq with enormous
suffering for more of the hated human vermin in Iraq, enmity with
Iran, and in the case of invasion, a very unstable world. At the same
time he was keying up North Korea for a showdown, setting up India /
Pakistan for a (probably nuclear) showdown, and most likely looking
forward to the ultimate results.

So he decided to mock us, knowing full well that atheism now had such
a hold on the Western mind that the first thing the human vermin would
do would be to rush to the barricades to point out he doesn't exist,
and that there is no such thing as evil personified. Which of course
suits him right down to ground zero.

This doesn't solve the "Mystery of Evil", since in Christian theology,
the devil is as much God's creation as we are, or the universe for
that matter.

During a period of frustration I once queried an old pastor I knew,
"What the hell did God make the devil for?". He thougth for a moment,
shrugged, and replied "Oh, he's got a job to do, I suppose".

Anyway Satan has this world so deceived he can mock us with our
popular image of himself in an episode of brutal mass murder, and we
stilll won't accept he exists.

He must be gaining a lot of recruits for his kingdom these days. They
even argue his case for him.

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

Post by b***@dodo.com.au
I do believe that a malign, highly intelligent spirit which we call
the devil exists however. I for one take the view that he decided to
mock us, humanity, when he arranged for his image to be shown in the
smoke of 9/11. Atheists will of course say it was merely a fortituous
pattern in the smoke, seized upon by Christian idiots as real. I
think it was real.

and why did the ALL-POWERFUL christian god sit on his FAT, LAZY ASS and
allow that to happen?
does the christian god love to watch people getting MURDERED, or is the
christian god a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim

Post by b***@dodo.com.au
I do believe that a malign, highly intelligent spirit which we call
the devil exists however. I for one take the view that he decided to
mock us, humanity, when he arranged for his image to be shown in the
smoke of 9/11. Atheists will of course say it was merely a fortituous
pattern in the smoke, seized upon by Christian idiots as real. I
think it was real.

and why did the ALL-POWERFUL christian god sit on his FAT, LAZY ASS and
allow that to happen?
does the christian god love to watch people getting MURDERED, or is the
christian god a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know He's not soft. Clearly
if He exists, He is prepared to allow the suffering to happen, for the
simple reason it exists. I suppose the other part of the Christian
doctrine is that no matter how powerful the personal, malign force of
evil is, it could not destroy the life of Christ. That's the whole
point of the resurrection.

"In this world you have tribulation".

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
does the christian god love to watch people getting MURDERED, or is the
christian god a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know He's not soft. Clearly
if He exists, He is prepared to allow the suffering to happen, for the
simple reason

for the simple reason that the christian god is a COLD-HEARTED BASTARD, he
loves to watch people being killed, and he really gets his rocks off when he
gets to MURDER a child, or watch a child being murdered.
DEATH TO THE MASS-MURDERING, CHILD-KILLING COLD-HEARTED BASTARD christian
god.

[Michael Ejercito]

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
does the christian god love to watch people getting MURDERED, or is the
christian god a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know He's not soft. Clearly
if He exists, He is prepared to allow the suffering to happen, for the
simple reason

for the simple reason that the christian god is a COLD-HEARTED BASTARD, he
loves to watch people being killed, and he really gets his rocks off when he
gets to MURDER a child, or watch a child being murdered.

He does not have to interfere; He is not a security guard, you
know.


Michael

[Bill M]

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
does the christian god love to watch people getting MURDERED, or is the
christian god a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know He's not soft. Clearly
if He exists, He is prepared to allow the suffering to happen, for the
simple reason

for the simple reason that the christian god is a COLD-HEARTED BASTARD, he
loves to watch people being killed, and he really gets his rocks off when he
gets to MURDER a child, or watch a child being murdered.

He does not have to interfere; He is not a security guard, you
know.
Michael

I thought he was the all loving creator of this whole huge Universe. Why did
he create all this
pain, suffering and evil?

[bob young]

Post by Bill M

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
does the christian god love to watch people getting MURDERED, or is the
christian god a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know He's not soft. Clearly
if He exists, He is prepared to allow the suffering to happen, for the
simple reason

for the simple reason that the christian god is a COLD-HEARTED BASTARD, he
loves to watch people being killed, and he really gets his rocks off when he
gets to MURDER a child, or watch a child being murdered.

He does not have to interfere; He is not a security guard, you
know.
Michael

I thought he was the all loving creator of this whole huge Universe. Why did
he create all this
pain, suffering and evil?

The pain, suffering and evil came along with early primitive humans back in
times when our early ancestors could hardly communicate in simple words.

Eaons later the clergy hijacked these nasty things to haveimaginary gods
to deal with them.

IOW they put the cart before the horse and have never stopped doing so.

Bob

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

He does not have to interfere; He is not a security guard, you

know.

is the christian god ALL-POWERFUL or is he a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by Michael Ejercito
He does not have to interfere; He is not a security guard, you

know.

is the christian god ALL-POWERFUL or is he a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

He's powerful, but He leaves us with free will, as He is interested in
developing ethical moral agents. That we disappoint Him quite often
means He must allow a lot of suffering, much of which is caused by
people mistreating other people.

He also warns us. Whether we heed the warnings or not is our
decision.

In relation the Marian warning at Fatima, and there have been others
in Akita, Japan and other places, along with the much more recent
satanic manipulation of 9/11 smoke, the funeral pyre for nearly 3000,
and the symbol of forthcoming trouble, my own belief is that we have
reached chapter 12 of Revelation. Ridiculous?

"I saw a portent in the heavens, a woman clothed with the sun etc."
followed closely by "Woe to you who live on the earth and by the sea,
for the devil knows his time is short..." and "he is in great fury".

So we have Mary turning up in 1917, warning us that there'll be
another worse war if we didn't change (World War II followed just 22
years later), manipulating the sun in front of 70,000 onlookers at
least, including university professors and atheist journalists, and
then 84 years later the devil decides to play his hand in a similar
way, but using a far more sinister backdrop, as one would expect of
the devil.

There's a cosmic spiritual war on and whether you like it or not,
you're going to have to make up your mind which side you're on. And
it's getting pretty late in the day.

[Mike]

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by Michael Ejercito
He does not have to interfere; He is not a security guard, you

know.

is the christian god ALL-POWERFUL or is he a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

He's powerful, but He leaves us with free will, as He is interested in
developing ethical moral agents. That we disappoint Him quite often
means He must allow a lot of suffering, much of which is caused by
people mistreating other people.

Does god have free will?

If "no" then we'll end it here (but a god with no free will is no god.)

If "yes" then "can god do evil"?

If "no" then it's possible for a being to have free will and yet not be
capable of evil so why aren't we the same?

If "yes" then "does god do evil"?

If "no" then (disregarding how you can tell that god can do evil if
he/she/it never does evil) it's possible for a being to have free will
and yet not do evil so why aren't we the same? (remember that the bible
says "ALL have sinned." I.e. ALL have done evil. Doesn't sound like
we're capable of never doing evil like god is.)

If "yes" then this god is as bad as we are so what gives him/her/it the
moral high ground here?

I.e. either it's possible for us to have free will and yet never do evil
(the same as god supposedly has/does) or your whole argument is hogwash.

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by Mike

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by Michael Ejercito
He does not have to interfere; He is not a security guard, you

know.

is the christian god ALL-POWERFUL or is he a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

He's powerful, but He leaves us with free will, as He is interested in
developing ethical moral agents. That we disappoint Him quite often
means He must allow a lot of suffering, much of which is caused by
people mistreating other people.

Does god have free will?
If "no" then we'll end it here (but a god with no free will is no god.)
If "yes" then "can god do evil"?
If "no" then it's possible for a being to have free will and yet not be
capable of evil so why aren't we the same?
If "yes" then "does god do evil"?
If "no" then (disregarding how you can tell that god can do evil if
he/she/it never does evil) it's possible for a being to have free will
and yet not do evil so why aren't we the same? (remember that the bible
says "ALL have sinned." I.e. ALL have done evil. Doesn't sound like
we're capable of never doing evil like god is.)
If "yes" then this god is as bad as we are so what gives him/her/it the
moral high ground here?
I.e. either it's possible for us to have free will and yet never do evil
(the same as god supposedly has/does) or your whole argument is hogwash.

God has free will, but the exception is that He does not deliberately
choose to do evil. However there is a difference between God and us
in that He is not subject to the same laws He's given us. "Thou shalt
not kill" does not apply to HIm, for the simple reason we are His
creation, stylised as the potter and the clay. There's one clear New
Testament segment where St. Peter called into question the motives of
a couple called Ananias and Sapphira. When they gave unsatisfactory
replies, God executed them on the spot, simply by taking the spirit of
life back, which He gives in the first place. My personal belief, as
a Catholic, is that it was done to emphasise not only God's power, but
also what we call Peter's Primacy. It is the only incident of that
type in the New Testament.

In God's hands, what we call morality is another tool. We have some
trees in Australia which require a bush-fire's heat to 'crack' the
seed. That is, they won't germinate until that happens. In the case
of the particular tree I'm thinking of, it lives in low fertility
soil, and the only time a young plant is likely to have a chance to
grow is when a bushfire has been through and added trace elements to
the ground via a bushfire. That's not the way I'd work, but I think
that in His hands, suffering may be another tool also. The church
does talk about the "blood of the martyrs" being the "seed of the
church". We do, after all, follow a man who was crucified. As
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was martyred by the Nazis, wrote, "When
Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die". Morbid? Depends what
happens afterward. The Disciples, who in nearly all cases were
martyred themselves in various ways and times, claimed to have seen
Christ rise after being crucified. This was on top of all the other
miracles He performed. For modern miracles, read up on Fatima,
notably the miracle of the Sun and the instantaneous drying of the
clothes of about 70,000 people. I'll say a bit more about Fatima
later, mainly in relation to Islam, which as you know is having a
renewed lease of life these day.

We're not unaware of the problem of suffering, and the Catholic Church
is also aware of the "mystery of evil".

Post by Mike
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church -

"154 - Now however, "we walk by faith, not by sight; we perceive God
as "in a mirror, dimly" and only "in part". Even though enlightened
by him in whom it believes, faith is often lived in darkness and can
be put to the test. The world we live in often seems very far from
the one promised us by faith. Our experiences of evil and suffering,
injustice, and death, seem to contradict the Good News; they can
shake our faith and become a temptation against it."

"312 - In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can
bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil,
caused by his creatures: "It was not you," said Joseph to his
brothers, "who sent me here, but God..... You meant evil against me,
but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should
be kept alive." From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the
rejection and murder of God's only Son, caused by the sins of all men
- God, by his grace that "abounded all the more", brought the greatest
of goods; the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for
all that, evil never becomes a good."

"395 - The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a
creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a
creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although
Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in
Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a
spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature - to each
man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which
with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a
great mystery that God should permit diabolical activity, but "we know
that in everything God works for good with those who love him."

On Fatima, which occurred in 1917, I'll enter the words of Bishop
Fulton Sheen, an American bishop who was an early catholic TV
apologist. You are probably aware of Islam's resurgence at this time.
There is another
aspect to Fatima not many people know about. This extract is from
"The World's Firist Love" in a chapter entitled "Mary and the
Moslems". It was also published in 1952, 55 years ago, so his
insight
into today's confrontation between Islam and the West was salutary.

"At the present time, the hatred of the Moslem countries against the
West is becoming a hatred against Christianity itself. Although the
statesmen have not taken it into account (in 1952), there is still
grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return (!!), and,
with it, a menace that it may shake off a West that has ceased to be
Christian and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world
power.....


It is our belief that this (conversion) will not happen through the
direct teaching of Christianity ..... which so far has been on the
surface, a failure ...but through a summoning of the Moslems to a
veneration of the Mother of God. This is the line of argument:


The Koran ... has many passages concerning the Blessed Virgin. First
of all, the Koran believes in her Immaculate Conception and also in
her Virgin Birth ....


Mary, then, is for the Moslems the true Sayyida, or Lady. The only
possible serious rival to her in their creed would be Fatima, the
daughter of Mohammed herself.....


The brings us to our second point, namely, why the Blessed Mother, in
this twentieth century, should have revealed herself in the
insignificant village of Fatima, so that to all future generations
she
would be known as Our Lady of Fatima. SInce nothing ever happens out
of Heaven except with a finesse of all details, I believe that the
Blessed Virgin chose to be known as "Our Lady Of Fatima" as a pledge
and a sign of hope to the Moslem people and as an assurance that
they,
who show her so much respect, will one day accept her Divine Son,
too.


Evidence to support these views is found in the historical fact that
the Moslems occupied Portugal for centuries. At the time when they
were finally driven out, the last Moslem chief had a beautiful
daughter by the name of Fatima. A Catholic boy fell in love with
her,
and for him she not only stayed behind, but even embraced the Faith.
The young husband was so much in love with her that he changed the
name of the town where he lived to Fatima. Thus, the very place
where
Our Lady appeared in 1917 bears an historical connection to Fatima
the
daughter of Mohammed......"

[Bill M]

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by Mike

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by Michael Ejercito
He does not have to interfere; He is not a security guard, you

know.

is the christian god ALL-POWERFUL or is he a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

He's powerful, but He leaves us with free will, as He is interested in
developing ethical moral agents. That we disappoint Him quite often
means He must allow a lot of suffering, much of which is caused by
people mistreating other people.

Does god have free will?
If "no" then we'll end it here (but a god with no free will is no god.)
If "yes" then "can god do evil"?
If "no" then it's possible for a being to have free will and yet not be
capable of evil so why aren't we the same?
If "yes" then "does god do evil"?
If "no" then (disregarding how you can tell that god can do evil if
he/she/it never does evil) it's possible for a being to have free will
and yet not do evil so why aren't we the same? (remember that the bible
says "ALL have sinned." I.e. ALL have done evil. Doesn't sound like
we're capable of never doing evil like god is.)
If "yes" then this god is as bad as we are so what gives him/her/it the
moral high ground here?
I.e. either it's possible for us to have free will and yet never do evil
(the same as god supposedly has/does) or your whole argument is hogwash.

God has free will, but the exception is that He does not deliberately
choose to do evil. However there is a difference between God and us
in that He is not subject to the same laws He's given us. "Thou shalt
not kill" does not apply to HIm, for the simple reason we are His
creation, stylised as the potter and the clay. There's one clear New
Testament segment where St. Peter called into question the motives of
a couple called Ananias and Sapphira. When they gave unsatisfactory
replies, God executed them on the spot, simply by taking the spirit of
life back, which He gives in the first place. My personal belief, as
a Catholic, is that it was done to emphasise not only God's power, but
also what we call Peter's Primacy. It is the only incident of that
type in the New Testament.
In God's hands, what we call morality is another tool. We have some
trees in Australia which require a bush-fire's heat to 'crack' the
seed. That is, they won't germinate until that happens. In the case
of the particular tree I'm thinking of, it lives in low fertility
soil, and the only time a young plant is likely to have a chance to
grow is when a bushfire has been through and added trace elements to
the ground via a bushfire. That's not the way I'd work, but I think
that in His hands, suffering may be another tool also. The church
does talk about the "blood of the martyrs" being the "seed of the
church". We do, after all, follow a man who was crucified. As
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was martyred by the Nazis, wrote, "When
Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die". Morbid? Depends what
happens afterward. The Disciples, who in nearly all cases were
martyred themselves in various ways and times, claimed to have seen
Christ rise after being crucified. This was on top of all the other
miracles He performed. For modern miracles, read up on Fatima,
notably the miracle of the Sun and the instantaneous drying of the
clothes of about 70,000 people. I'll say a bit more about Fatima
later, mainly in relation to Islam, which as you know is having a
renewed lease of life these day.
We're not unaware of the problem of suffering, and the Catholic Church
is also aware of the "mystery of evil".

Post by Mike
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church -

"154 - Now however, "we walk by faith, not by sight; we perceive God
as "in a mirror, dimly" and only "in part". Even though enlightened
by him in whom it believes, faith is often lived in darkness and can
be put to the test. The world we live in often seems very far from
the one promised us by faith. Our experiences of evil and suffering,
injustice, and death, seem to contradict the Good News; they can
shake our faith and become a temptation against it."
"312 - In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can
bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil,
caused by his creatures: "It was not you," said Joseph to his
brothers, "who sent me here, but God..... You meant evil against me,
but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should
be kept alive." From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the
rejection and murder of God's only Son, caused by the sins of all men
- God, by his grace that "abounded all the more", brought the greatest
of goods; the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for
all that, evil never becomes a good."
"395 - The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a
creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a
creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although
Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in
Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a
spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature - to each
man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which
with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a
great mystery that God should permit diabolical activity, but "we know
that in everything God works for good with those who love him."
On Fatima, which occurred in 1917, I'll enter the words of Bishop
Fulton Sheen, an American bishop who was an early catholic TV
apologist. You are probably aware of Islam's resurgence at this time.
There is another
aspect to Fatima not many people know about. This extract is from
"The World's Firist Love" in a chapter entitled "Mary and the
Moslems". It was also published in 1952, 55 years ago, so his
insight
into today's confrontation between Islam and the West was salutary.
"At the present time, the hatred of the Moslem countries against the
West is becoming a hatred against Christianity itself. Although the
statesmen have not taken it into account (in 1952), there is still
grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return (!!), and,
with it, a menace that it may shake off a West that has ceased to be
Christian and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world
power.....
It is our belief that this (conversion) will not happen through the
direct teaching of Christianity ..... which so far has been on the
surface, a failure ...but through a summoning of the Moslems to a
The Koran ... has many passages concerning the Blessed Virgin. First
of all, the Koran believes in her Immaculate Conception and also in
her Virgin Birth ....
Mary, then, is for the Moslems the true Sayyida, or Lady. The only
possible serious rival to her in their creed would be Fatima, the
daughter of Mohammed herself.....
The brings us to our second point, namely, why the Blessed Mother, in
this twentieth century, should have revealed herself in the
insignificant village of Fatima, so that to all future generations
she
would be known as Our Lady of Fatima. SInce nothing ever happens out
of Heaven except with a finesse of all details, I believe that the
Blessed Virgin chose to be known as "Our Lady Of Fatima" as a pledge
and a sign of hope to the Moslem people and as an assurance that
they,
who show her so much respect, will one day accept her Divine Son,
too.
Evidence to support these views is found in the historical fact that
the Moslems occupied Portugal for centuries. At the time when they
were finally driven out, the last Moslem chief had a beautiful
daughter by the name of Fatima. A Catholic boy fell in love with
her,
and for him she not only stayed behind, but even embraced the Faith.
The young husband was so much in love with her that he changed the
name of the town where he lived to Fatima. Thus, the very place
where
Our Lady appeared in 1917 bears an historical connection to Fatima
the
daughter of Mohammed......"

I guess human imaginations are some kind of delusionary evidence of a
mythical
god and his buddies.

[Mike]

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by Mike

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by Michael Ejercito
He does not have to interfere; He is not a security guard, you

know.

is the christian god ALL-POWERFUL or is he a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

He's powerful, but He leaves us with free will, as He is interested in
developing ethical moral agents. That we disappoint Him quite often
means He must allow a lot of suffering, much of which is caused by
people mistreating other people.

Does god have free will?
If "no" then we'll end it here (but a god with no free will is no god.)
If "yes" then "can god do evil"?
If "no" then it's possible for a being to have free will and yet not be
capable of evil so why aren't we the same?
If "yes" then "does god do evil"?
If "no" then (disregarding how you can tell that god can do evil if
he/she/it never does evil) it's possible for a being to have free will
and yet not do evil so why aren't we the same? (remember that the bible
says "ALL have sinned." I.e. ALL have done evil. Doesn't sound like
we're capable of never doing evil like god is.)
If "yes" then this god is as bad as we are so what gives him/her/it the
moral high ground here?
I.e. either it's possible for us to have free will and yet never do evil
(the same as god supposedly has/does) or your whole argument is hogwash.

God has free will, but the exception is that He does not deliberately
choose to do evil.

Then why couldn't we be made the same way (i.e. where we do not
deliberately choose to do evil?)

<snip buncha crap about how "when god kills, it's not evil" and then
some total non sequiter about the Fatima crap>

Either it's evil or it's not. It's not "there's evil and then there's
what god does."

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
does the christian god love to watch people getting MURDERED, or is the
christian god a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know He's not soft. Clearly
if He exists, He is prepared to allow the suffering to happen, for the
simple reason

for the simple reason that the christian god is a COLD-HEARTED BASTARD, he
loves to watch people being killed, and he really gets his rocks off when he
gets to MURDER a child, or watch a child being murdered.
DEATH TO THE MASS-MURDERING, CHILD-KILLING COLD-HEARTED BASTARD christian
god.

WE do the murdering.

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
for the simple reason that the christian god is a COLD-HEARTED BASTARD, he
loves to watch people being killed, and he really gets his rocks off when he
gets to MURDER a child, or watch a child being murdered.
DEATH TO THE MASS-MURDERING, CHILD-KILLING COLD-HEARTED BASTARD christian
god.

WE do the murdering.

and the COLD-HEARTED BASTARD christian god laughs his sick, sadistic ass off
while children are being raped and murdered

is the christian god ALL-POWERFUL or is he a USELESS PILE OF CRAP?

[Bill M]

You apparently have been brain washed and hypnotized by your clergy from and
early age.

Open your eyes and see the 'real' world, not your imaginary world!

Post by b***@dodo.com.au

Post by SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
which is it, 2 of every kind or 7 of every kind?
and what about taking termites on the ark?
HEY, ALL-KNOWING DUMBASS CHRISTIAN GOD, DO YOU THINK THAT TAKING TERMITES
ABOARD A WOODEN ARK IS A GREAT IDEA, YOU DUMBASS
FUCKING MORON?
AND PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT FUCKING USELESS PURPOSE FIRE ANTS SERVE.
WHY WERE THOSE ON THE ARK TO BE SAVED.
1.. Genesis 6:20
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of
creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
Genesis 6:19-21 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)
2.. Genesis 7:2
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate,
and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,
DO YOU CHRISTIAN NUTS STILL BELIEVE THIS BIBLE HORSESHIT?

As a Catholic I don't take every Biblical statement in the literal
sense. However termites do have a role to play in the ecosystem,
since they break down dead wood, which would otherwise just pile up
until destroyed by fire. Flies and maggots break down decomposing
matter, cockroaches likewise. The trouble comes when they invade our
artificial environment. Mind you, I can't think of anything good to
say about mosquitoes, although if they were ever exterminated, we'd
probably find out then what their critical roles are.
I do believe that a malign, highly intelligent spirit which we call
the devil exists however. I for one take the view that he decided to
mock us, humanity, when he arranged for his image to be shown in the
smoke of 9/11. Atheists will of course say it was merely a fortituous
pattern in the smoke, seized upon by Christian idiots as real. I
think it was real. By our understanding, the devil hates humanity.
He had just arranged for a handful of humans to murder nearly 3000 of
the hated vermin, quite horribly.
Moreover he knew that as a result the US would become embroiled in the
Middle East, leading to another 3000 deaths of serving personnel (with
more to come no doubt), unrequited violence in Iraq with enormous
suffering for more of the hated human vermin in Iraq, enmity with
Iran, and in the case of invasion, a very unstable world. At the same
time he was keying up North Korea for a showdown, setting up India /
Pakistan for a (probably nuclear) showdown, and most likely looking
forward to the ultimate results.
So he decided to mock us, knowing full well that atheism now had such
a hold on the Western mind that the first thing the human vermin would
do would be to rush to the barricades to point out he doesn't exist,
and that there is no such thing as evil personified. Which of course
suits him right down to ground zero.
This doesn't solve the "Mystery of Evil", since in Christian theology,
the devil is as much God's creation as we are, or the universe for
that matter.
During a period of frustration I once queried an old pastor I knew,
"What the hell did God make the devil for?". He thougth for a moment,
shrugged, and replied "Oh, he's got a job to do, I suppose".
Anyway Satan has this world so deceived he can mock us with our
popular image of himself in an episode of brutal mass murder, and we
stilll won't accept he exists.
He must be gaining a lot of recruits for his kingdom these days. They
even argue his case for him.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Bill M
You apparently have been brain washed and hypnotized by your clergy
from and early age.
Open your eyes and see the 'real' world, not your imaginary world!

Not a very convincing refutation of the post, was it? Sure, bob's comments
were based primarily on his belief system - but your purpose here is to
prove that no gods exist, isn't it, Bill? I don't see you doing that. I
see you arguing your opinion against bob's.

Didn't you just lecture me on posting opinions? Or did I imagine that,
Bill?

[Vigyazat]

Post by Ylog
OK Bill...you have proved that you have tons of time on your hands.
Your Zeal for your religion is astounding. But will you accept it if I
prove to you that there is a God??
I have posted another thread on this....reply on that

Bill is unlikely to reply to any responses to his posts, although he does
on occasion. As I see it he generally prefers simply to post the same
messages repeatedly, then drift away and allow his various lackeys to field
any responses.

However, there's certainly no reason why he should comply with your
instruction to move to a different thread, when he's started a perfectly
good one here. He's no more obliged to do that than I was when you issued
the same instruction to me.

[Bill M]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Ylog
OK Bill...you have proved that you have tons of time on your hands.
Your Zeal for your religion is astounding. But will you accept it if I
prove to you that there is a God??
I have posted another thread on this....reply on that

Bill is unlikely to reply to any responses to his posts, although he does
on occasion. As I see it he generally prefers simply to post the same
messages repeatedly, then drift away and allow his various lackeys to field
any responses.

Why do you engage in stupid, nonsensical and unsubstantiated opinions. do
you
think this impresses anyone?

Post by Vigyazat
However, there's certainly no reason why he should comply with your
instruction to move to a different thread, when he's started a perfectly
good one here. He's no more obliged to do that than I was when you issued
the same instruction to me.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Bill M
Why do you engage in stupid, nonsensical and unsubstantiated opinions.
do you
think this impresses anyone?

So it's fine for you to do it, but it's stupid, nonsensical and
unsubstantiated when I do? Sounds fairly typical.

Everything is opinion here, Bill.

[Christopher A.Lee]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Bill M
Why do you engage in stupid, nonsensical and unsubstantiated opinions.
do you
think this impresses anyone?

So it's fine for you to do it, but it's stupid, nonsensical and
unsubstantiated when I do? Sounds fairly typical.
Everything is opinion here, Bill.

Bullshit.

It's loonies who believe in virgin births etc rubbing their insanity
in everybody else's faces. Who imagine not believing in somebody
else's silliness is "just an opinion".

[Vigyazat]

Post by Christopher A.Lee
Bullshit.
It's loonies who believe in virgin births etc rubbing their insanity
in everybody else's faces. Who imagine not believing in somebody
else's silliness is "just an opinion".

Strange, then: I don't believe in virgin births, and I really couldn't give
a shit whether you believe what I believe or not.

What's at issue here is whether your master Bill can put his money where
his mouth is. So far, I haven't seen him prove a thing except that he
really has trouble recognising the difference between 'religion' and
'Christianity'.

[Bill M]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Christopher A.Lee
Bullshit.
It's loonies who believe in virgin births etc rubbing their insanity
in everybody else's faces. Who imagine not believing in somebody
else's silliness is "just an opinion".

Strange, then: I don't believe in virgin births, and I really couldn't give
a shit whether you believe what I believe or not.
What's at issue here is whether your master Bill can put his money where
his mouth is. So far, I haven't seen him prove a thing except that he
really has trouble recognising the difference between 'religion' and
'Christianity'.

It is time for you to read perceptively.

There is no objective evidence that any sane non delusional person
has ever heard from or seen any God. It never talks or communicates directly
with us or appears to us. Claims by thousands of errant preachers, priests
and other religious leaders that they communicate with gods are pure
unsubstantiated claims - not objective verifiable evidence.



There are close to 1,000 different Gods believed in by mankind. Why would
any real God permit all these fakes and confusion?



If there was an all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
creator, why did it create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions,
Floods, Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases
and serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect
and punish mankind indiscriminately. Over two million totally innocent
children die of starvation every year. Why punish millions of INNOCENT
CHILDREN in this horrible way?


Why does he permit millions of both young and old of all religious
persuasions to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? If there was an
all powerful and caring god would it permit totally "innocent children" to
die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed brain,
deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and others with
super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others pauper poor?
Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a miserable and
devastating old age regardless of their religious affiliation?



The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods!

[Vigyazat]

Post by Bill M
It is time for you to read perceptively.

I perceive you once again attacking 'religion' and once again presenting as
your argument the undeniable and restricted fact that there's no evidence
for an omniscient, all-loving male creator God who lives in Heaven. Which
of course is true. I see you ignoring or failing to understand the fact
that this proves only that there's no evidence for an omniscient, all-
loving male creator God who lives in Heaven, and therefore no reason to
believe in one. It doesn't constitute proof against, and you've also
failed to grasp that such belief is rarely based on proof in any case.

Perhaps it's you who needs to start posting perceptively? Beginning with
an understanding that your arguments are too simplistic and limited to do
what you're trying to do?

[Snip repeat of original post]

Bill, as you should know from the posts of some of the religious people
here, repetition does not make fact.

In this case, while much of what you say IS fact, repetition does not make
your argument support your conclusion; and nor does it make your argument
inclusive of all religions as you'd like to make out.

Credit where it's due, though: well done for answering for yourself.

[Christopher A.Lee]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Bill M
It is time for you to read perceptively.

I perceive you once again attacking 'religion' and once again presenting as
your argument the undeniable and restricted fact that there's no evidence
for an omniscient, all-loving male creator God who lives in Heaven. Which
of course is true. I see you ignoring or failing to understand the fact
that this proves only that there's no evidence for an omniscient, all-
loving male creator God who lives in Heaven, and therefore no reason to
believe in one. It doesn't constitute proof against, and you've also
failed to grasp that such belief is rarely based on proof in any case.

What part of "nobody wopuld give a flying fuck about somebody else's
religion" if you lot kept kept it to yourself, didn't impose it, and
didn't lie about those who don't share your beliefs, are you
pretenfing you don't understand?

Post by Vigyazat
Perhaps it's you who needs to start posting perceptively? Beginning with
an understanding that your arguments are too simplistic and limited to do
what you're trying to do?

Oh, the irony.

Post by Vigyazat
[Snip repeat of original post]
Bill, as you should know from the posts of some of the religious people
here, repetition does not make fact.

If you acknowledged his points he would not need to repeat them.

Post by Vigyazat
In this case, while much of what you say IS fact, repetition does not make
your argument support your conclusion; and nor does it make your argument
inclusive of all religions as you'd like to make out.

He never said it dfid. He did however give reasons which you ignore.

Post by Vigyazat
Credit where it's due, though: well done for answering for yourself.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Christopher A.Lee
What part of "nobody wopuld give a flying fuck about somebody else's
religion" if you lot kept kept it to yourself, didn't impose it, and
didn't lie about those who don't share your beliefs, are you
pretenfing you don't understand?

And since we're speaking our minds, and since you and I have been
through this time and time again, what part of "'religion' doesn't equal
'Christianity'" do YOU not understand?

I know the argument, Chris, you've made it dozens of times: some
religious people are intolerant, or preachy, or bigoted, and therefore
all religious people are evil and should be denied their freedom to
believe what they see fit, with atheists clearly intellectually superior
and therefore the only people who can be trusted to make decisions.

The trouble is that, as with your master here, your argument comes down
to a narrow understanding of what 'religion' actually includes.

You've called me a lying theist, Chris. Theist I am indeed: but can you
remember what my beliefs are? And can you remember the last time I told
you you should share them?

Post by Christopher A.Lee
If you acknowledged his points he would not need to repeat them.

His points are relevant to *Christianity* - and therefore they're for
Christians to address. The problem is that he dresses them up as
attacks on religion as a whole, because like all too many angry atheist
militants, he's got a blinkered view of what 'religion' is, and he can't
be bothered to question himself.

If HE addressed THAT point, then I wouldn't need to keep repeating it.

Post by Christopher A.Lee

Post by Vigyazat
In this case, while much of what you say IS fact, repetition does not
make your argument support your conclusion; and nor does it make your
argument inclusive of all religions as you'd like to make out.

He never said it dfid. He did however give reasons which you ignore.

Any chance you want to take a look at the subject line, Chris?

[Christopher A.Lee]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Christopher A.Lee
What part of "nobody wopuld give a flying fuck about somebody else's
religion" if you lot kept kept it to yourself, didn't impose it, and
didn't lie about those who don't share your beliefs, are you
pretenfing you don't understand?

And since we're speaking our minds, and since you and I have been
through this time and time again, what part of "'religion' doesn't equal
'Christianity'" do YOU not understand?

Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?

Post by Vigyazat
I know the argument, Chris, you've made it dozens of times: some
religious people are intolerant, or preachy, or bigoted, and therefore
all religious people are evil and should be denied their freedom to
believe what they see fit, with atheists clearly intellectually superior
and therefore the only people who can be trusted to make decisions.

A liar as well as an idiot.

Why not address the actual reason you get treated as the idiots you
show yourselves to be?

Hint: that was a perfect example.

Post by Vigyazat
The trouble is that, as with your master here, your argument comes down
to a narrow understanding of what 'religion' actually includes.

What "master", lying theist?

Post by Vigyazat
You've called me a lying theist, Chris. Theist I am indeed: but can you
remember what my beliefs are? And can you remember the last time I told
you you should share them?

You show yourself to be a liar with every response.

If you don't like it, then stop lying. It's as easy as that.

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Christopher A.Lee
If you acknowledged his points he would not need to repeat them.

His points are relevant to *Christianity* - and therefore they're for
Christians to address. The problem is that he dresses them up as
attacks on religion as a whole, because like all too many angry atheist
militants, he's got a blinkered view of what 'religion' is, and he can't
be bothered to question himself.

Or any religion that calls its god "God", moron.

Post by Vigyazat
If HE addressed THAT point, then I wouldn't need to keep repeating it.

Do you realise that if you assholes kept your delusions to yourselves,
neither he nor any other atheist would have anything to react to?

[Vigyazat]

Post by Christopher A.Lee
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?

Until I agree with you, Chris, I know very well I'll be the stupidest
person alive as far as you're concerned. Fortunately, your assessment
of my intelligence is of no consequence to me.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
A liar as well as an idiot.

Yeah, yeah - heard it before, Chris. But isn't it convenient that it
enables you to avoid actually refuting the claim?

Post by Christopher A.Lee
Why not address the actual reason you get treated as the idiots you
show yourselves to be?

'We' (whoever that is, but I'll take it as read you think I'm more than
one person) get treated as idiots by the likes of you simply because you
believe you're intellectually superior. Therefore anyone who doesn't
believe what you tell them to believe is an idiot. Anybody who
questions that belief is also a liar.

Again, this is nothing new for you, Chris.

Post by Christopher A.Lee

Post by Vigyazat
The trouble is that, as with your master here, your argument comes
down to a narrow understanding of what 'religion' actually includes.

What "master", lying theist?

The guy whose posts you invariably scurry to defend to save him the
effort of answering responses himself. You're Bill's pilot fish.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
You show yourself to be a liar with every response.

I make no excuse for the fact that I have little patience with arrogance
like yours; and I show that I don't agree with your views. That may be
a sign of dishonesty as far as you're concerned - but while you squeal
"liar, liar, liar", I don't actually see you refuting any point I've
made so far.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
If you don't like it, then stop lying. It's as easy as that.

As I've said, I'm well aware that the time you'll stop calling me these
things is when I agree with every word you say - and not a moment
before.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
Or any religion that calls its god "God", moron.

Well done: you managed to focus on the actual point for a moment. Okay,
so any religion that calls its god 'God', then. Or, further, where that
God happens to be a male creator, all-loving, all-knowing and
all-powerful, who lives in Heaven, and whose Word is supposedly
contained within the Bible.

And also, I don't know if you've noticed, but it's the intellectually
inferior and morally repugnant theist here who doesn't seem to be
reduced to schoolyard epithets.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
Do you realise that if you assholes kept your delusions to yourselves,
neither he nor any other atheist would have anything to react to?

Do you realise that every thread-starter of Bill's I respond to is
crossposted BY BILL into alt.religion.christian? Please spare me your
indignant innocence: you know very well that he actively seeks out
confrontation - as do you - and where he paves the way, sure enough you
come running along behind.

[Christopher A.Lee]

I notice you snipped your stupidity. It fools nobody, not even
yourself.

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Christopher A.Lee
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?

Until I agree with you, Chris, I know very well I'll be the stupidest
person alive as far as you're concerned. Fortunately, your assessment
of my intelligence is of no consequence to me.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
A liar as well as an idiot.

Yeah, yeah - heard it before, Chris. But isn't it convenient that it
enables you to avoid actually refuting the claim?

Don't lie and don't be stupid. It's really easy. That way you won't be
called the liar and idiot you repeatedly show yourself.

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Christopher A.Lee
Why not address the actual reason you get treated as the idiots you
show yourselves to be?

'We' (whoever that is, but I'll take it as read you think I'm more than
one person) get treated as idiots by the likes of you simply because you
believe you're intellectually superior. Therefore anyone who doesn't
believe what you tell them to believe is an idiot. Anybody who
questions that belief is also a liar.

And that is another of your lies.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Christopher A.Lee
I notice you snipped your stupidity. It fools nobody, not even
yourself.

And I notice you haven't refuted the point yet. Don't think for one moment
that your flannel here fools me, either.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
Don't lie and don't be stupid. It's really easy. That way you won't be
called the liar and idiot you repeatedly show yourself.

More evasion. I wonder if you really know what the comment you're
objecting to actually is? I wonder if it's at all important to you?

Post by Christopher A.Lee

Post by Vigyazat
'We' (whoever that is, but I'll take it as read you think I'm more than
one person) get treated as idiots by the likes of you simply because you
believe you're intellectually superior. Therefore anyone who doesn't
believe what you tell them to believe is an idiot. Anybody who
questions that belief is also a liar.

And that is another of your lies.

And that is more of your evasiveness. Do you actually have anything to
say?

[Mike]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Bill M
It is time for you to read perceptively.

I perceive you once again attacking 'religion' and once again presenting as
your argument the undeniable and restricted fact that there's no evidence
for an omniscient, all-loving male creator God who lives in Heaven. Which
of course is true. I see you ignoring or failing to understand the fact
that this proves only that there's no evidence for an omniscient, all-
loving male creator God who lives in Heaven, and therefore no reason to
believe in one. It doesn't constitute proof against, and you've also
failed to grasp that such belief is rarely based on proof in any case.
Perhaps it's you who needs to start posting perceptively? Beginning with
an understanding that your arguments are too simplistic and limited to do
what you're trying to do?
[Snip repeat of original post]
Bill, as you should know from the posts of some of the religious people
here, repetition does not make fact.
In this case, while much of what you say IS fact, repetition does not make
your argument support your conclusion; and nor does it make your argument
inclusive of all religions as you'd like to make out.
Credit where it's due, though: well done for answering for yourself.

Ok, then, define "god" and then show that this entity that you defined
exists.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Mike
Ok, then, define "god" and then show that this entity that you defined
exists.

You want me to preach my religion, then, do you?

[Christopher A.Lee]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike
Ok, then, define "god" and then show that this entity that you defined
exists.

You want me to preach my religion, then, do you?

Were did he say that, moron?

[Vigyazat]

Post by Christopher A.Lee

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike
Ok, then, define "god" and then show that this entity that you defined
exists.

You want me to preach my religion, then, do you?

Were did he say that, moron?

Again, Chris, your anger drives you to childish abuse where it is not
required.

He didn't say that, and I didn't say that he did. I asked him if he really
wanted me to preach - because I am well aware that that is how any post by
me describing any aspect of my religion will be interpreted by those of you
who are determined to prove that religionists are all preachy.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that Mike is capable of speaking for himself.

[Christopher A.Lee]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Christopher A.Lee

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike
Ok, then, define "god" and then show that this entity that you defined
exists.

You want me to preach my religion, then, do you?

Were did he say that, moron?

Again, Chris, your anger drives you to childish abuse where it is not
required.

What "anger driving me to childish abuse", liar?

You dishonestly put words in his mouth that he didn't say.

Post by Vigyazat
He didn't say that, and I didn't say that he did. I asked him if he really
wanted me to preach - because I am well aware that that is how any post by
me describing any aspect of my religion will be interpreted by those of you
who are determined to prove that religionists are all preachy.

You can give real-world, outside your religion answers. But instead of
doing that you used a dishonest cop out.

Post by Vigyazat
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that Mike is capable of speaking for himself.

This is an open forum.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Christopher A.Lee

Post by Vigyazat
Again, Chris, your anger drives you to childish abuse where it is not
required.

What "anger driving me to childish abuse", liar?

It's difficult to imagine what else might move you to abuse like 'moron'
every time you don't get your own way.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
You dishonestly put words in his mouth that he didn't say.

Nope - I asked him a simple question in too confrontational a tone.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
You can give real-world, outside your religion answers. But instead of
doing that you used a dishonest cop out.

I've not ducked out of anything yet, Chris. In fact, I'm waiting for his
reply to my earlier post to make sure he knows under what terms I'd offer
such a definition and why I'm suspicious of requests that I do so.

Post by Christopher A.Lee

Post by Vigyazat
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that Mike is capable of speaking for himself.

This is an open forum.

It is indeed - but while you're allowed to post anywhere you choose, I'm
allowed to tell you when I think your post is irrelevant.

[Mike]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike
Ok, then, define "god" and then show that this entity that you defined
exists.

You want me to preach my religion, then, do you?

No, I just want to hear what your answer to the above question is.
Defining god has nothing to do with the religion that you practice (much
less "preaching" it.)

[Christopher A.Lee]

Post by Mike

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike
Ok, then, define "god" and then show that this entity that you defined
exists.

You want me to preach my religion, then, do you?

That is an example of the kind of dishonesty which leads to him being
described with words he pretends are unjustified.

Post by Mike
No, I just want to hear what your answer to the above question is.
Defining god has nothing to do with the religion that you practice (much
less "preaching" it.)

You won't get one.

These morons don't seem to understand that there is a real world
outside their religion - where real world rules apply. Which includes
putting up or shutting up. After all they know we don't grant the
religious presumptions they don't stop talking about.

A real world in which theirs is merely one of hundreds of different
religions, whose doctrinal presumptions are only taken seriously by
their believers. And none of them are substantively different than the
others - including his.

A real world where it is extremely disrespectful to talk at others as
though their own doctrinal presumptions were universally granted.

A real world in which explanations have to be given in
outside-the-religion terms. To do otherwise is even more
disrespectful.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Christopher A.Lee
You won't get one.

Won't he? Let's just wait and see, shall we? If Mike responds reasonably
to the comments I've made then he'll get his definition, for what good
it'll do him.

Post by Christopher A.Lee
These morons don't seem to understand that there is a real world
outside their religion - where real world rules apply. Which includes
putting up or shutting up. After all they know we don't grant the
religious presumptions they don't stop talking about.
A real world in which theirs is merely one of hundreds of different
religions, whose doctrinal presumptions are only taken seriously by
their believers. And none of them are substantively different than the
others - including his.
A real world where it is extremely disrespectful to talk at others as
though their own doctrinal presumptions were universally granted.
A real world in which explanations have to be given in
outside-the-religion terms. To do otherwise is even more
disrespectful.

Such an impressive lecture - but it only serves to make my point for me.
Your talk of 'doctrinal presumptions' gives you away. You simply can't
imagine that a religion can be anything other than the narrow definition
you've decided on; or that religious people can have any attitude other
than that you've prescribed for them. And when you find out - as you could
easily have done already, if you'd been receptive to any point of view but
your own - that my religious beliefs doesn't conform to these predecided
standards, what's the betting you'll try to argue it doesn't really count
at all?

[Vigyazat]

Post by Christopher A.Lee

Post by Mike
No, I just want to hear what your answer to the above question is.
Defining god has nothing to do with the religion that you practice (much
less "preaching" it.)

You won't get one.

Well, Chris?

[Vigyazat]

Post by Mike

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike
Ok, then, define "god" and then show that this entity that you
defined exists.

You want me to preach my religion, then, do you?

No, I just want to hear what your answer to the above question is.
Defining god has nothing to do with the religion that you practice
(much less "preaching" it.)

First, I should apologise for the tone of my response above. It does
read as rather confrontational now that I look at it again, although I
didn't really intend to give that impression.

But before I answer your question I have to mention a couple of reasons
why I'm suspicious of any request or demand in a thread like this that
seeks my specific religious views. The points I've made are independent
of my own personal definition of 'God', because even without my views,
the fact is that the definition of God that Bill uses is a narrow one
rooted in Abramic tradition and specifically within Christianity.

In addition, were I to post my own definition of 'God' here (and I have
done so before where appropriate), it could easily be construed by those
seeking such ammunition as 'preaching' - an attempt to persuade others
to my point of view. This was the point I was trying to make in my
original short response to you. It is fundamental to me that my
religious beliefs and my perception of divinity are and can be relevant
only to me, and to no-one else - although others may have (and have)
independently reached similar points of view. This is the basis of my
objection to the idea that religion necessarily requires proselytisation
and enforcement.

My third concern would be that, based on previous experience, some
anti-theists amongst those involved in this thread take it upon
themselves, in accordance with their specific preconception as to what
'religion' is, to tell me that my beliefs do not qualify as religion at
all. This is because my definition of God - or I should perhaps say
divinity, since 'God' is necessarily misleading - bears absolutely no
resemblance to the deity concept they are familiar with, and against
which their attacks on 'religion' are actually targetted. It also
enables them, faced with a religious belief that does not correspond
with the pattern for which they express such hatred, to dismiss it and
make it 'not count' - which of course allows them to avoid having to
reassess their prejudices.

If you are willing to consider all of these points - and please note
that I'm not trying to imply that you would necessarily take any of
these views, although you'll understand in the context of the thread
that I can't rule it out - then I am quite willing to explain to you the
basis of my own deity concept. But I would be doing so purely as an
illustration of why I challenge Bill's sweeping declarations about what
'religion' represents.

[Mike]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike
Ok, then, define "god" and then show that this entity that you
defined exists.

You want me to preach my religion, then, do you?

No, I just want to hear what your answer to the above question is.
Defining god has nothing to do with the religion that you practice
(much less "preaching" it.)

First, I should apologise for the tone of my response above. It does
read as rather confrontational now that I look at it again, although I
didn't really intend to give that impression.
But before I answer your question I have to mention a couple of reasons
why I'm suspicious of any request or demand in a thread like this that
seeks my specific religious views. The points I've made are independent
of my own personal definition of 'God', because even without my views,
the fact is that the definition of God that Bill uses is a narrow one
rooted in Abramic tradition and specifically within Christianity.

Yes, I agree that often when atheists "rail against god" they are
referring to the xian god. That's why, at times like this, I want to
hear what YOU (who-ever it is that I'm speaking with in the particular
thread of the moment) define "god."

Basically, the person who claims "X exists" is the one who bears the
burden of defining X so that we can look at one entity (real or
imaginary) and say "that's an X" and look at another and say "that's not
an X." Otherwise, it amounts to me asking you "do you believe
'triughtsors' exist?"

Post by Vigyazat
In addition, were I to post my own definition of 'God' here (and I have
done so before where appropriate), it could easily be construed by those
seeking such ammunition as 'preaching' - an attempt to persuade others
to my point of view.

It depends on how you post it. If you simply say "here's how I define
(a) god" and then simply follow with that definition, I can't see that
as preaching (but if you followed it up with anything like "and this god
exists and wants X" then that would be preaching.)

I'd define a god as, at least, something like "Faster than a speeding
bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings at
a single bound! ... God ... strange visitor from another place who came
to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men! God,
who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare
hands, and who, disguised as Jesus Christ, mild-mannered preacher for a
small middle-eastern town, fights a never-ending battle for truth,
justice, and the American way!"

Actually, kidding aside, I'd withhold the term "god" unless the entity
did have the ability to change the laws of nature at a whim; maybe
creator of all that we can perceive; extremely benevolent, knowledgeable
and powerful (note that I don't require any omni's); truly worthy of
worship due to its inherent nature.

But unless we have a common meeting ground (i.e. unless you define this
entity that you propose to exist), any discussion of "god" is
meaningless. And that is part of Chris's point (although I don't like
his way of presenting it at all.)

This was the point I was trying to make in my

Post by Vigyazat
original short response to you. It is fundamental to me that my
religious beliefs and my perception of divinity are and can be relevant
only to me, and to no-one else - although others may have (and have)
independently reached similar points of view. This is the basis of my
objection to the idea that religion necessarily requires proselytisation
and enforcement.
My third concern would be that, based on previous experience, some
anti-theists amongst those involved in this thread take it upon
themselves, in accordance with their specific preconception as to what
'religion' is, to tell me that my beliefs do not qualify as religion at
all. This is because my definition of God - or I should perhaps say
divinity, since 'God' is necessarily misleading - bears absolutely no
resemblance to the deity concept they are familiar with, and against
which their attacks on 'religion' are actually targetted. It also
enables them, faced with a religious belief that does not correspond
with the pattern for which they express such hatred, to dismiss it and
make it 'not count' - which of course allows them to avoid having to
reassess their prejudices.
If you are willing to consider all of these points - and please note
that I'm not trying to imply that you would necessarily take any of
these views, although you'll understand in the context of the thread
that I can't rule it out - then I am quite willing to explain to you the
basis of my own deity concept. But I would be doing so purely as an
illustration of why I challenge Bill's sweeping declarations about what
'religion' represents.

I don't like the ones who come in here saying "gawd wants you to love
him or else you'll be eternally damned (and I will dance on your grave
in pleasure)" type crap. How-ever, if someone comes in saying "here's
what I think god (or 'divinity', if you'd prefer) is and what attributes
he has" simply as a discussion point, I'll discuss it with them
reasonably and point out where I think their ideas are flawed, etc. (and
they can point out where they think my ideas are flawed as well.)

Now I'll agree that you'll also get some responses like Chris's but you
won't get them from me as long as you're not acting like a total idiot
(and I haven't see you act that way yet. I may not agree with what you
say but I don't find your style of saying it that bad (yet:)))

[Vigyazat]

Okay, then. This will be a longish post, which you're free to read or
not as you please.

In my case, there are two labels that together would form a rough
approximation of my position, though I don't pretend that the
correspondence is precise in either case.

Firstly, I'd call myself a pantheist, of sorts. This is because, to me,
'God', in essence (and I use the name here to represent divinity, not in
representation of the Christian God), is the world and the universe
around us - including ourselves. Everything that exists is a part of
the overall divinity, and everything that happens is a natural internal
process of 'God'. It is self-creating, because it is everything, but it
created nothing else, because there is nothing else. This means that,
as far as I'm concerned, the 'proof' of God is that I'm standing on it,
looking at it, touching it and breathing it.

The first reaction I get at this point is usually annoyance: I'm wasting
your time. I'm playing stupid semantic games and when it comes down to
it I'm not really talking about God or religion at all. I'm just
talking about some pointless, hippy-sounding rubbish that doesn't make a
scrap of difference to anyone. My 'religion', in the end, doesn't
amount to anything. After all, since the natural world is undeniably
there, it isn't a matter of faith, and therefore can't be subject of a
religion. But this is one of the points I'm often prompted to make when
people attack 'religion'. As we've said, it's often the case that what
they're actually attacking is one specific religion or group of
religions. There are those who persistently demand proof of religion
safe in the presumption that it's something that can't be proved - and
with many forms of religion this is true, as believers themselves will
often happily admit. This then often feeds into the attacker's
expectations, and leads them to their conclusion: 'inability to prove'
equals 'disproof'. In attempting to show why no-one should believe,
they really only offer reasons why they don't. Of course, this has
little bearing on the believer, who will have his or her own reasons for
holding to their faith, and doesn't require the 'objective proof' that
the challenger will be demanding.

So, my religion doesn't count as a religion, and my 'God' isn't any kind
of god. But my 'God' has everything that many of the other gods have:
it has consciousness, because all consciousness is part of it. It's
intelligent, because all intelligence is part of it. It's omnipresent,
because, well, it's everywhere at once. It's all-knowing, because all
knowledge is contained within it, however much of it we might know at
any given time: it's all there. Perhaps you could even say it has will
and a plan, because the progression and development of the Cosmos has a
distinct direction - albeit it's a 'plan' that we may only ever glimpse
through our science and exploration. My 'God', of course, doesn't
perform miracles or bend the laws of physics, because it *is* the laws
of physics. 'Miracles' happen every day, if by 'miracle' we mean
something fantastically clever and awe-inspiring. If by 'miracle' we
mean something supernatural, then of course there can be no such thing,
because there's no such thing as 'supernatural'. Whatever exists is
natural. (As Terry Pratchett once pointed out, the supposed ability of
a man to turn water into wine is lauded as miraculous, and yet the
ability of nature to turn sunlight into wine is taken for granted.)

Is a god required to make demands of us humans? If so, mine isn't a
god. It makes no demands of me - unless you include the simple demands
of continued existence. Nor does it answer prayers; but then, why would
I expect it to? It doesn't offer me salvation; but then, it doesn't
threaten me with damnation either. It bestows blessings and gifts on me
in abundance - but at the same time it also curses me and hurts me and
subjects me to suffering. Why? Wouldn't it owe me some sort of
explanation, if it was really a god? Well, no. How could it possibly
owe me anything? Does it even notice me? Why should it? And why
should I expect it to be kind? I don't notice each and every cell that
makes up my body: they're part of me, but I concern myself with the
whole thing, as a rule, and the major workings of it - not every tiny
individual component. And if I lose a few cells along the way, I
wouldn't care. But shouldn't a god be merciful and loving? Not unless
you happen to believe in a god that's merciful and loving - and that
doesn't constitute all of them, by any measure. That's only what some
people believe deity should be according to their own view of it.

So that's why my 'God' qualifies as a god - at least as far as I'm
concerned; and let's face it, nothing else is required when it comes to
defining my religious beliefs. But this weird perspective just isn't
*necessary*, is it? There's no *reason* to attribute divinity to things
that clearly don't need it: it's nonsense to do so. Well, that's
partially where the faith comes in. I just believe that the Cosmos
merits a certain reverence, as the biggest, most powerful thing in
existence. If the Cosmos doesn't deserve that much, then certainly
nothing else does. And besides, I do choose to believe that there is a
greater purpose to all this; something that's always going to be beyond
my ability to comprehend it - but that nevertheless rolls on inevitably,
with everything that happens, whether it appears good or bad to me,
contributing to that overall end. Is there any logical reason to
believe that? No. But I don't need a logical reason. It's just what
feels right to me.

Some would argue that religion requires obligation or obedience. But
the definition I've given here clearly doesn't require either, so
obviously whatever my insane delusion about divinity might be, it isn't
truly religion. Well, it's true that a pantheistic viewpoint such as
the above doesn't impose requirements on me except, again, the basic
needs I have to satisfy to continue my existence. It certainly doesn't
impose any moral code on me. The Cosmos doesn't care whether I live a
good life or an evil one. But even if the Cosmos doesn't require
specific standards of behaviour from me, I do. I have a moral code that
comes from my own consideration, my own conscience, my own judgement
and, if nothing else, my general desire to do as I would be done to.
Whether you'd call that a religious obligation or just an ethical one
doesn't really make much difference to me, since obviously the two
amount to the same thing from my point of view.

I said there were two labels. The other I use frequently is 'pagan'.
The Cosmos is a big thing. Too big for me to fit it all into my
consciousness. I couldn't possibly accommodate everything there is in
my head, even if I knew everything there was to know. So while I can
learn any amount of hard scientific facts about the world around me,
sometimes there are times when I want to reflect on more abstract
things, so for these purposes I employ representative personifications
of various phenomena, processes and concepts; natural and man-made
(i.e., natural). Put simply, I do what Bill accuses all religious
people of doing: I create gods. I'm not going to list them all here;
that'd serve no purpose. But their existence in my worldview doesn't
affect any of those scientific facts. They represent elements of the
world; they change and develop and interact according to my
understanding, and they allow me - or at least help me - to relate
myself in a spiritual sense (whatever that might mean) to the Cosmos
that surrounds me and of which I am part. It's perhaps not the same
definition that most pagans would probably use - but it's a pagan
definition, all the same.

Again, I know this has been a long post - but since you had the good
will to ask the question (and apparently mean it), I owe you the
courtesy of a thorough answer. And maybe now you're wondering why on
Earth I'd expect you to buy any of this rubbish. Why would you accept
that my way of looking at things is right? I've offered no proof, and
frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if you can't see any sense in it at
all. The answer is that I don't expect you will - and frankly, I'd be a
little concerned if you did. You're your own person, with your own
views and your own intelligence. It's up to you to decide how you think
about the world you're in, just as it's up to me to decide for me. We
may have beliefs in common; we may differ on some things. That's how it
should be. If we disagree then as far as I'm concerned we talk it over
until either one of us changes our mind, or we come to a compromise, or
we decide it's not worth the hassle. The purpose of this exercise as
far as I'm concerned is solely to demonstrate that religion does NOT
have to conform to the profile assumed for it by Bill, Chris, and
numerous other anti-theists on these groups. It doesn't have to involve
a loving creator God. It doesn't have to involve proselytisation. It
doesn't have to be relevant to anyone but the individual. And this is
only mine. There are hundreds more.

[Jeckyl]

Post by Vigyazat
Okay, then. This will be a longish post, which you're free to read or
not as you please.

I like your concept. Thanks for sharing it.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Jeckyl
I like your concept. Thanks for sharing it.

You're welcome.

[Mike]

Post by Vigyazat
Okay, then. This will be a longish post, which you're free to read or
not as you please.

I'm going to trim this down and basically summarize the first part [the
summary of your post is the parts in the [] below) and then reply so if
I summarized too much or got it wrong, I apologize.

[I'm a deist who has immense reverence for the cosmos and basically
apply the term "god" to it.]

I don't have a problem with that and wouldn't call it "playing word
games" but also just don't see the need to apply the term "god" to it,
either. IMHO, that just confuses the issue. I do have a certain amount
of awe and reverence for the cosmos in it's beauty, splendor and
vastness as a whole but that's the same that I'd have for a beautiful
mountain range or a sunset (maybe to a greater degree for the cosmos, of
course.) You did say "Is there any logical reason to believe that? No.
But I don't need a logical reason. It's just what feels right to me."
As long as you're understanding and agreeing that this is your "opinion"
or "way of viewing things", I won't argue with it.

Post by Vigyazat
I said there were two labels. The other I use frequently is 'pagan'.
The Cosmos is a big thing. Too big for me to fit it all into my
consciousness. I couldn't possibly accommodate everything there is in
my head, even if I knew everything there was to know. So while I can
learn any amount of hard scientific facts about the world around me,
sometimes there are times when I want to reflect on more abstract
things, so for these purposes I employ representative personifications
of various phenomena, processes and concepts; natural and man-made
(i.e., natural). Put simply, I do what Bill accuses all religious
people of doing: I create gods. I'm not going to list them all here;
that'd serve no purpose. But their existence in my worldview doesn't
affect any of those scientific facts. They represent elements of the
world; they change and develop and interact according to my
understanding, and they allow me - or at least help me - to relate
myself in a spiritual sense (whatever that might mean) to the Cosmos
that surrounds me and of which I am part. It's perhaps not the same
definition that most pagans would probably use - but it's a pagan
definition, all the same.
Again, I know this has been a long post - but since you had the good
will to ask the question (and apparently mean it), I owe you the
courtesy of a thorough answer. And maybe now you're wondering why on
Earth I'd expect you to buy any of this rubbish. Why would you accept
that my way of looking at things is right? I've offered no proof, and
frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if you can't see any sense in it at
all. The answer is that I don't expect you will - and frankly, I'd be a
little concerned if you did. You're your own person, with your own
views and your own intelligence. It's up to you to decide how you think
about the world you're in, just as it's up to me to decide for me. We
may have beliefs in common; we may differ on some things. That's how it
should be. If we disagree then as far as I'm concerned we talk it over
until either one of us changes our mind, or we come to a compromise, or
we decide it's not worth the hassle. The purpose of this exercise as
far as I'm concerned is solely to demonstrate that religion does NOT
have to conform to the profile assumed for it by Bill, Chris, and
numerous other anti-theists on these groups. It doesn't have to involve
a loving creator God. It doesn't have to involve proselytisation. It
doesn't have to be relevant to anyone but the individual. And this is
only mine. There are hundreds more.

I'm not sure what to say about this part. I do want you to know I read
it but I'm not going to really reply to it at this time. I will say that
I didn't take any of the above post as preaching, how-ever, and I do
appreciate you taking the time to post your view, even though I don't
really agree with it (but, as you said, you didn't expect me to and
weren't trying to get me to.)

[Vigyazat]

Post by Mike
As long as you're understanding and agreeing that this is your
"opinion" or "way of viewing things", I won't argue with it.

Certainly I do. The reason I get into arguments like this thread is
because I know that that's all religion *has* to be to be valid and
relevant to the religious person themselves. Whereas there are those
who believe that, without proof, not only is religion nonsense, but it's
also inevitably dangerous, and those who follow it are deserving of
contempt and aggression.

Even then, if that claim was made on the sole basis that there's no
objective proof for religion, I don't think it'd be quite so obnoxious;
although that argument alone would raise questions about other concepts
for which there's no objective proof but which we accept
unquestioningly, such as morality and justice.

But when such an argument is made on the back of claims that religion
requires proselytisation, or enforcement, or this that and other, when
clearly not all religions do and indeed many don't, then I see it as a
flawed argument that needs to be challenged. If only because I believe
very strongly that if it becomes necessary to attack something, the
attack should be focused, precise and measured. A blanket attack on an
entire concept based on a limited definition is inaccurate,
disproportionate and ultimately self-damaging.

You may agree or not that that's the scenario here, but that's certainly
how I see it.

Post by Mike
I'm not sure what to say about this part. I do want you to know I read
it but I'm not going to really reply to it at this time. I will say
that I didn't take any of the above post as preaching, how-ever, and I
do appreciate you taking the time to post your view, even though I
don't really agree with it (but, as you said, you didn't expect me to
and weren't trying to get me to.)

Okay, that's no problem. Likewise I appreciate your taking the time to
read it.

[Mike]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike
As long as you're understanding and agreeing that this is your
"opinion" or "way of viewing things", I won't argue with it.

Certainly I do. The reason I get into arguments like this thread is
because I know that that's all religion *has* to be to be valid and
relevant to the religious person themselves. Whereas there are those
who believe that, without proof, not only is religion nonsense, but it's
also inevitably dangerous, and those who follow it are deserving of
contempt and aggression.

Some religions ARE dangerous but I wouldn't say they all are. Some
religions are nothing more than big social groups and others, such as
yours, are very private and internal. I have no problem with what
someone else believes as long as they don't try and force me to believe
it as well.

I.e. put a nativity scene on your lawn (yes, I realize YOU aren't xian;
I'm using the generic "you" here :)) and I have no issue with it.

Put the same nativity scene on the courthouse lawn and I have HUGE
issues with it (even if it's privately funded, the courthouse lawn
wasn't and it's still a display that the court officials are supporting.)

Sit at your desk and pray before a test? Fine by me.

Stand in front of the class (whether a student or a teacher) and lead
them in prayer? Not on your life.

Seeing a pattern here? :)

Post by Vigyazat
Even then, if that claim was made on the sole basis that there's no
objective proof for religion, I don't think it'd be quite so obnoxious;
although that argument alone would raise questions about other concepts
for which there's no objective proof but which we accept
unquestioningly, such as morality and justice.

I don't argue that religion doesn't exist, any more than I argue that
justice doesn't exist. They are both mindsets. I DO argue when someone
says "God exists" when they don't offer any evidence for it (in your
case, it's not so much that "god exists" since you equate god with "the
cosmos" but I don't really agree that the cosmos needs to be called "a
god." But I'm not getting into that here.)

Post by Vigyazat
But when such an argument is made on the back of claims that religion
requires proselytisation, or enforcement, or this that and other, when
clearly not all religions do and indeed many don't, then I see it as a
flawed argument that needs to be challenged. If only because I believe
very strongly that if it becomes necessary to attack something, the
attack should be focused, precise and measured. A blanket attack on an
entire concept based on a limited definition is inaccurate,
disproportionate and ultimately self-damaging.
You may agree or not that that's the scenario here, but that's certainly
how I see it.

Yes, I do agree that if you're going to say "X does/doesn't exist" you
should at least know what X is supposed to be.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Mike
Some religions ARE dangerous but I wouldn't say they all are. Some
religions are nothing more than big social groups and others, such as
yours, are very private and internal. I have no problem with what
someone else believes as long as they don't try and force me to
believe it as well.
I.e. put a nativity scene on your lawn (yes, I realize YOU aren't
xian; I'm using the generic "you" here :)) and I have no issue with
it.
Put the same nativity scene on the courthouse lawn and I have HUGE
issues with it (even if it's privately funded, the courthouse lawn
wasn't and it's still a display that the court officials are
supporting.)
Sit at your desk and pray before a test? Fine by me.
Stand in front of the class (whether a student or a teacher) and lead
them in prayer? Not on your life.
Seeing a pattern here? :)

Not only seeing it, but agreeing with it - for the most part. You
already set yourself above certain others in my eyes by being able to
allow for the fact that not all religions are dangerous. Some aren't
able to make that distinction, but I see that as an indication more of a
problem in them.

Where we may differ is in our views of what does constitute 'danger'
from religion - if by danger we mean aggressive proselytisation or
oppressive indoctrination.

Nativity scene on lawn of home address: again, fine with me, too.

Nativity scene on courthouse lawn: well, bearing in mind Britain doesn't
have a built-in separation of Church and State, I'd still agree with you
that it wouldn't be appropriate.

Praying before a test? Also fine with me.

Praying in front of the class? Fine with me.

Leading the class in prayer (which is distinctly different from the
above in my view)? Not appropriate.

By the above distinction I'm hoping to address the common assertion by
anti-religionists that religion should not only be passive - i.e. that
it should not proselytise - but that it should be concealed and never
manifested in public. That I wouldn't agree with. Ours are, after all,
supposedly countries where freedom of expression is protected.

Freedoms are tricksy things, of course, because when one person has a
right to do something, someone else will always want a right not to have
to see or hear them do it. So the same old question comes up: whose
right is most important: the right of the religious person to express
their religion, or the right of the anti-religionist not to be irritated
by having to witness such expression?

My opinion on that is that if it is expression that's protected, then
provided those involved are mature enough to present their views in a
reasonable way (for example, without resorting to abuse or fists) then
both have the same right: the religionist can pray, or wear their
jewellery, or whatever it is they need to do; while the person opposed
to their belief can stand right there and make their opinions known.
Neither can prevent the other having their say: the only choice for
either apart from this is to go somewhere else. But don't they both
have the right to express their opinions wherever they wish? Well,
within reason, yes - but once tensions start to increase then both sets
of rights start to take second place to the right of the community as a
whole to go undisturbed by conflict. One, or ideally both, should go
elsewhere.

Post by Mike
I don't argue that religion doesn't exist, any more than I argue that
justice doesn't exist. They are both mindsets. I DO argue when someone
says "God exists" when they don't offer any evidence for it (in your
case, it's not so much that "god exists" since you equate god with
"the cosmos" but I don't really agree that the cosmos needs to be
called "a god." But I'm not getting into that here.)

Okay - but understand I'm not trying to say "this is the definition of
god". The point I'm making is that 'god' can mean a range of different
things to different people, and therefore arguing that "there's no
evidence for gods" is difficult - ESPECIALLY when your claimed basis for
doing so is such a wide range of gods and deity concepts as 'all gods',
and even more so when while referring to such a wide range you still
actually describe only one limited notion of 'God'.

Post by Mike
Yes, I do agree that if you're going to say "X does/doesn't exist" you
should at least know what X is supposed to be.

Exactly. So my objection to Bill's posts, essentially, is that he
advances arguments against the Christian God - based on the definitions
and the objections he presents - but that he suggests his arguments
apply equally to every possible concept of the word 'god', and to the
word 'religion' as a whole.

If he'd openly argue against 'God', and against the Christian religion,
with the points he usually offers, I'd have no reason to dispute him at
all. I'd leave it to the Christians to do that if they felt the need.

Sorry. I talk a lot.

[Mike]

Post by Vigyazat

Post by Mike
Some religions ARE dangerous but I wouldn't say they all are. Some
religions are nothing more than big social groups and others, such as
yours, are very private and internal. I have no problem with what
someone else believes as long as they don't try and force me to
believe it as well.
I.e. put a nativity scene on your lawn (yes, I realize YOU aren't
xian; I'm using the generic "you" here :)) and I have no issue with
it.
Put the same nativity scene on the courthouse lawn and I have HUGE
issues with it (even if it's privately funded, the courthouse lawn
wasn't and it's still a display that the court officials are
supporting.)
Sit at your desk and pray before a test? Fine by me.
Stand in front of the class (whether a student or a teacher) and lead
them in prayer? Not on your life.
Seeing a pattern here? :)

Not only seeing it, but agreeing with it - for the most part. You
already set yourself above certain others in my eyes by being able to
allow for the fact that not all religions are dangerous. Some aren't
able to make that distinction, but I see that as an indication more of a
problem in them.

If you ask me, the 'bad people' would do bad even without religion;
religion just gives them an excuse.

Post by Vigyazat
Where we may differ is in our views of what does constitute 'danger'
from religion - if by danger we mean aggressive proselytisation or
oppressive indoctrination.
Nativity scene on lawn of home address: again, fine with me, too.
Nativity scene on courthouse lawn: well, bearing in mind Britain doesn't
have a built-in separation of Church and State, I'd still agree with you
that it wouldn't be appropriate.
Praying before a test? Also fine with me.
Praying in front of the class? Fine with me.
Leading the class in prayer (which is distinctly different from the
above in my view)? Not appropriate.

If someone was doing a show-and-tell and saying "this is a prayer that
my folks taught me" they're be praying before the class but I'd have
little problem with it. If they stood up at lunch and prayed aloud,
they'd be "praying in front of the lunchroom" but I'd also have no real
problem. But if they went up to the teacher and said "Hey, teach, I'd
like to have a prayer in front of the class so that the test will go OK"
and the teacher say "Yeah, what-ever, knock yourself out. Class, please
be quiet for the next few moments." I'd have a HUGE problem with that.
I.e. is this a prayer done for religious reasons and, in any way,
sanctioned by the teacher and where it interrupts the normal operation
of things in the class? If so, then it's wrong. The class doesn't have
to be "led in prayer" (where they may be reciting the prayer as well)
for it to be a state-sanctioned prayer.

Post by Vigyazat
By the above distinction I'm hoping to address the common assertion by
anti-religionists that religion should not only be passive - i.e. that
it should not proselytise - but that it should be concealed and never
manifested in public. That I wouldn't agree with. Ours are, after all,
supposedly countries where freedom of expression is protected.

Yes, I'll protect your freedom to express your religion to the exact
same extent (no more but also no less) that I'd be able to express my
feelings that it's a bunch of hogwash. I.e. I wouldn't go along with the
same teacher allowing a kid to stand before the class and say "religion
is bogus" and making the rest of the class be quiet while that student
is saying it.

Post by Vigyazat
Freedoms are tricksy things, of course, because when one person has a
right to do something, someone else will always want a right not to have
to see or hear them do it. So the same old question comes up: whose
right is most important: the right of the religious person to express
their religion, or the right of the anti-religionist not to be irritated
by having to witness such expression?

It's not a matter of being irritated by it but "is it being done in such
a way that it is sponsored, sanctioned or otherwise being agreed with by
the government?" I.e. if you stood on a street corner and preached
(whether you're preaching "there is a god" or if you're preaching "there
is NOT a god") and handed out pamplets printed on your own dime, that's
fine. But if you wanted the city to pay for printing the pamplets,
there's a huge problem here.

Post by Vigyazat
My opinion on that is that if it is expression that's protected, then
provided those involved are mature enough to present their views in a
reasonable way (for example, without resorting to abuse or fists) then
both have the same right: the religionist can pray, or wear their
jewellery, or whatever it is they need to do; while the person opposed
to their belief can stand right there and make their opinions known.
Neither can prevent the other having their say: the only choice for
either apart from this is to go somewhere else. But don't they both
have the right to express their opinions wherever they wish? Well,
within reason, yes - but once tensions start to increase then both sets
of rights start to take second place to the right of the community as a
whole to go undisturbed by conflict. One, or ideally both, should go
elsewhere.

I fully agree. That's why the schools (and other government entities)
should not say ANYTHING about religion either way.

[Bill M]

Post by Ylog
OK Bill...you have proved that you have tons of time on your hands. Your
Zeal for your religion is astounding. But will you accept it if I prove to
you that there is a God??

Absolutely. I'm waiting for your 'proof''.

Post by Ylog
I have posted another thread on this....reply on that

Haven't seen it and don't know where it is. Why didn't you post it above?

[Snap Whipcrack..............]

Post by Bill M
has ever heard from or seen any God. It never talks or communicates directly
with us or appears to us. Claims by thousands of errant preachers, priests
and other religious leaders
that they communicate with gods are pure unsubstantiated claims - not
objective verifiable evidence.
There are close to 1,000 different Gods believed in by mankind. Why would
any real God permit all these fakes and confusion?
If there was an all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
creator, why did it create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions,
Floods, Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases
and serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect
and punish mankind indiscriminately. Over two million totally innocent
children die of starvation every year. Why punish millions of INNOCENT
CHILDREN in this horrible way?
Why does he permit millions of both young and old of all religious
persuasions to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? If there was an
all powerful and caring god would it permit totally "innocent children" to
die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed brain,
deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and others with
super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others pauper poor?
Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a miserable and
devastating old age regardless of their religious affiliation?
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods!

There are too many crazy people to make public what you really think
about the fake Jew god and other fake gods. The fact that they really
believe this crap tells you that they are off their fucking rockers and
dangerous to be around.

[Vigyazat]

Post by Bill M
has ever heard from or seen any God.

Is this a question, or a statement?

Rhetorical question. I know it's the statement you regularly present as
'proof' that no gods exist; when in fact it's nothing more than a lack
of evidence that they do.

Post by Bill M
It never talks or communicates
directly with us or appears to us.

Okay, now what is this It that you describe?

Post by Bill M
There are close to 1,000 different Gods believed in by mankind.

'It' is presumably any one of these 1,000 different gods. This, then,
excludes any other gods beyond that 1,000, or any deity form that does
not appear as one of these 1,000 gods.

Post by Bill M
Why would any real God permit all these fakes and confusion?

Because you're talking about 1,000 different gods (but not more) then
the question must be asked why it would NOT permit all these fakes and
confusion. What preconceptions do you hold that require that a god
would object?

Post by Bill M
If there was an all powerful creator

Right, so of our 1,000 original gods, we've narrowed it down to those
who are an 'all powerful creator'.

Post by Bill M
all loving and caring

Now we've narrowed it down further, to those who are said to be all
loving and caring.

Post by Bill M
intelligent creator

And still further by defining it as a 'creator' of any kind.

Post by Bill M
Over two million totally innocent children die of starvation every
year. Why punish millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?

Again I ask you: why is it any less unpleasant that adults die? Is it
because children carry greater value for emotive rhetoric, perhaps?

Post by Bill M
Why does he permit

Narrowed down still further: the gods we're interested in are male.

And once again, we end up with the fact that when Bill uses the word
'god', what he means is 'God' - the Christian God, against whom all
Bill's argument are ultimately made.

Post by Bill M
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

The objective evidence is that there is no objective evidence for gods.
This is not proof that no such entity exists, but simply that no
objective evidence for one has been found.