1
   

In the mood for a fight? I am!

 
 
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2004 09:09 pm
I didn't see any threads that provided exactly what I was looking for: an all out I'm right you're wrong brawl!

I say there's no god!

Here's what I have:

--Gods are usually thought of as omnipotent, and I think omnipotence is impossible. e.g., an omnipotent god would be able to make a wall so strong that even he himself couldn't break it down

The following are interesting facts:

-Every theory of god I've ever heard has major logical problems.

-Many god-pushers advocate an appeal to faith over reason, and that is the definition of a fool! Look it up!

-Many believe stories of normally impossible things, but no one I've ever spoken to has ever actually seen an impossible thing.

-Many contribute seeing improbable things as evidence for their god.

-My brother believes TO THIS DAY that he really did see god when he was high on marajawanna for the first time.

-Many people (I used to do it too) make up "god's will" as they go along, and somehow think something besides their creativity is behind the "answers" they come up with.



That ought to start a fire!
Feel free to attack as hard as you want, but beware, I will fight back! I will not mind being made a fool of, but I warn you, I will make a fool of you if I can (and I feel you deserve it).

And stay out of this, Frank! (hehe just kidding)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 9,055 • Replies: 193
No top replies

 
InTraNsiTiOn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2004 09:19 pm
I agree. Sorry, no fight here!
0 Replies
 
Cyanure
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 03:11 am
binnyboy, did you have dynamite on your breakfast?
Well you asked and you came to "fight" and it's on you to prove that there's no God and not the opposite.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 03:59 am
Hi, Binny

Interesting guesses about REALITY you have offered....and I want you to know that they make every bit as much sense to me as any of the guesses offered by the people who do "believe" in any of the various gods. :wink:

In any case, a few comments about what you wrote, if I may:

Quote:
Gods are usually thought of as omnipotent, and I think omnipotence is impossible. e.g., an omnipotent god would be able to make a wall so strong that even he himself couldn't break it down


Okay...so maybe people are wrong about the omnipotent part! Maybe there are gods...but they cannot do things that are definitionally impossible.

This is actually an argument about the limitations of humans rather than about the existence of gods.


Quote:
Every theory of god I've ever heard has major logical problems.


Well here you are arguing against "theories of gods" rather than against gods. Once again, maybe people are wrong in their theories. In any case, almost every theory you've ever offered here in A2K has major logical problems...but you exist, don't you?


Quote:
Many god-pushers advocate an appeal to faith over reason, and that is the definition of a fool! Look it up!


I tried and could not find it. But I will have more to say about this little gem later in a closing paragraph.


Quote:
Many believe stories of normally impossible things, but no one I've ever spoken to has ever actually seen an impossible thing.


Once again, you are arguing against what may possibly be human failures...rather than against the existence of gods.


Quote:
Many contribute seeing improbable things as evidence for their god.


Another argument that deals with the willingness of humans to be naive and to pretend that non-evidence is actually evidence for what they want to "believe in"...rather than against the existence of gods. I'll mention this in my closing paragraph also.


Quote:
My brother believes TO THIS DAY that he really did see god when he was high on marajawanna for the first time.


Aha...this is an improvement. Instead of arguing against the limitations of the human race...you are at least here arguing against the limitations of just one individual. But even you should be able to see that what your brother believes while stoned is not truly evidence against the existence of gods. (You do, don't you???)


Quote:
Many people (I used to do it too) make up "god's will" as they go along, and somehow think something besides their creativity is behind the "answers" they come up with.


Jeez...once again you are presenting arguments dealing with human limitations and frailties. At this point, I began wonder when if you were ever gonna get to something that argued against the existence of gods.


Quote:
That ought to start a fire!


It should?

Why?


Quote:
Feel free to attack as hard as you want, but beware, I will fight back! I will not mind being made a fool of, but I warn you, I will make a fool of you if I can (and I feel you deserve it).


Beware???

Nah!


Quote:
And stay out of this, Frank! (hehe just kidding)


Yeah...I knew you were kidding.


Binny, you opened with "I say there's no god!"...and immediately went on to say, "Here's what I have."

If this is all you have...you have nothing, because you have not offered even one argument supporting your guess that there is no God. Atheists...as do their philosophical counterparts, theists...often do this. I know you recognize this because you touched on it in some of the things you mentioned about theists, such as: "Many god-pushers advocate an appeal to faith over reason, and that is the definition of a fool!"...and..."Many contribute seeing improbable things as evidence for their god."

That is what you have done here, Binny.

Hey...I've got no problem with someone looking for an argment.

Let's be at it.

But if it is gonna be about your evidence against the existence of gods...you gotta begin. So far, you've offered nothing.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 06:30 am
I have lived a long time, and have never observed any indication that there is a God. At this point in my life, I really don't care!

binnyboy- If you would like to fight with me about something else, fire away.
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 03:24 pm
Nope phoenix that's the fight I'm looking for Smile

And FRANK!

If you'll notice my only point of argument was that omnipotence is impossible. You seem to agree, though you have some comment on humans in the process of your agreement. If you'll notice very carefully, the rest of the things I said are just interesting facts, not my argument.

So you seem to agree. An omnipotent god is impossible (though you conject about a "god" that can do things that are not definitionally impossible).

You also have implied that you believe anyone who believes anything particular about a god will have some logical point wrong. But you believe that thinking there is NO god is equally fallable.

Well, Frank, let me ask you this:
Do you don't have a tail?
Hint: according to your previous argument, your answer, for consistence to apply to your answers, should be "I don't know".
After all, just because there's no evidence you have a tail doesn't mean you don't have one.


faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

reason: The power to think, judge, and draw logical conclusions.

absurd: Foolishly incongruous or unreasonable; ridiculous. -See Synonyms at foolish.

Source: Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedia (encyclopedic dictionary)

I can apply reason to whatever I want, including what anybody says about god. And if what they say is unreasonable, it is absurd. And if what they say is absurd, it is foolish. And that person is a fool.
Sorry if that's too much definition hopping. Maybe it's lost in the translation.... See, I'm being reasonable here Smile
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 03:39 pm
Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedia? How many letters does that go to? Laughing I'm actually with you on the no god theory, but you said you wanted a fight.
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 03:42 pm
Smile i figured I'd get a razz for that Smile

Hehe but its all I've got in the house. Shouldve used net dictionary. Its real thick if that helps any Laughing
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 03:44 pm
My position on god is the same as my position on UFO's. There is no harm in believing, but I don't expect either in my back yard any time soon.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 04:13 pm
binnyboy wrote:
Nope phoenix that's the fight I'm looking for Smile

And FRANK!

If you'll notice my only point of argument was that omnipotence is impossible. You seem to agree,


No I don't...and I did not say, nor intimate that I agree.

I merely pointed out that humans may be wrong[/b] about that item.

I have no idea if omnipotence is impossible...and I suspect neither do you. But...it is alright with me if you want to assert stuff you do not know.


Quote:
... though you have some comment on humans in the process of your agreement. If you'll notice very carefully, the rest of the things I said are just interesting facts, not my argument.


Okay...but since they were presented in defense of what you were saying...I think that is a distinction that is self-serving. But I will agree for the sake of further debate.


Quote:
So you seem to agree. An omnipotent god is impossible (though you conject about a "god" that can do things that are not definitionally impossible).


I have absolutely no idea if an omnipotent god is possible or impossible. I do understand that humans can think up definitionally impossible things...but for all I know, gods, if they exist, can handle that kind of thing standing on their heads.

In any case, I doubt anyone with any intelligence at all would define "omnipotence" as being able to do all things...even definitionally impossible ones.


Quote:
You also have implied that you believe...


I can stop you right there...because you have never heard me imply that I "believe" anything.

If you have comments on something I have said...why not simply quote what I said rather than characterizing it...and then debating the characterization?


Quote:
... anyone who believes anything particular about a god will have some logical point wrong.


No I didn't. I merely speculated about something that might possible be.

If you intend to argue against, or use, anything I have said...please quote what it is you are arguing against.


Quote:
But you believe that thinking there is NO god is equally fallable.


I did not mention anything I "believe." If you have something I said to which you want to make reference...please do so with a quote.


Quote:
Well, Frank, let me ask you this:
Do you don't have a tail?
Hint: according to your previous argument, your answer, for consistence to apply to your answers, should be "I don't know".
After all, just because there's no evidence you have a tail doesn't mean you don't have one.


Try to get a grip on it, Bin. You are over-reaching by a considerable amount.

But if you really want to make this absurd argument and get your doors blown off...at least do it using some quotes rather than building strawmen.


Quote:
faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

reason: The power to think, judge, and draw logical conclusions.

absurd: Foolishly incongruous or unreasonable; ridiculous. -See Synonyms at foolish.

Source: Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedia (encyclopedic dictionary)


Well, Bin...among the two dozen dictionaries that I have in my study...I happen to have a copy of the Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary...the book to which I assume you make reference...

...and I find that, with your paraphrasing, you have not accurately cited what is written in that book.

I would suggest that if you are presenting definitions from dictionaries...that you quote exactly...or you will run into the same difficulties you did by paraphrasing what I said.

And...even with the paraphrasing...you have not substantiated your assertion that "Many god-pushers advocate an appeal to faith over reason, and that is the definition of a fool! Look it up!"


Quote:
I can apply reason to whatever I want, including what anybody says about god.


Yes you can. And I hope you start doing it soon.


Quote:
And if what they say is unreasonable, it is absurd. And if what they say is absurd, it is foolish. And that person is a fool.


Well...we have still got to determine who is the fool...the person being charged with foolishness; the person doing the charging; or both.

But that is for the future. Let's take one thing at a time.

Quote:
Sorry if that's too much definition hopping. Maybe it's lost in the translation.... See, I'm being reasonable here Smile


It is not too much definition. In fact, it is not enough definition...or more exactly, not accurate definition. And the "translation" is suspect to say the least. But we can chalk that up to zealousness.

But I will agree that you are being "reasonable", Bin.

Good for you.

I'll do my level best to be reasonable back.
0 Replies
 
furiousflee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 04:45 pm
Frank....you know how to really present your arguments man, I respect that...and personally to get into the entire is there a God or isn't there thing(this is to binny by the way) is really a drag man....people always try to convince other people about their points of view with very little result....If you truly want to influence somebodies opinion or belief you need to do it in a less hostile way, and presenting reasonable information and not opinionated statements. But whatever...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 04:55 pm
furiousflee wrote:
Frank....you know how to really present your arguments man, I respect that...and personally to get into the entire is there a God or isn't there thing(this is to binny by the way) is really a drag man....people always try to convince other people about their points of view with very little result....If you truly want to influence somebodies opinion or belief you need to do it in a less hostile way, and presenting reasonable information and not opinionated statements. But whatever...


Thanks for the compliment, Flee.

I love to argue and debate...and philosophy and religion are two areas that provide the best of those two things.

Well...the political threads do also...but they get so goddam nasty, I try to stay away except immediately before elections.
0 Replies
 
furiousflee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 04:58 pm
Quote:
I love to argue and debate...and philosophy and religion are two areas that provide the best of those two things.

Well...the political threads do also...but they get so goddam nasty, I try to stay away except immediately before elections.


So you go against the old saying of the things never to argue about...you know; Sex, Religion and politics....
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 06:07 pm
sorry, frank, gotta wait till tomorrow I've got 2 tests tomorrow
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 06:17 pm
binnyboy wrote:
sorry, frank, gotta wait till tomorrow I've got 2 tests tomorrow



Take your time, Bin.

Good luck with the tests!
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 06:19 pm
The Riddle of Epicurus[/URL]
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 07:01 pm
mesquite wrote:
The Riddle of Epicurus[/URL]
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.


Sounds good to me.


Quote:
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.


Not necessarily so!

If a parent, for instance, is able to correct evil in his/her child (let's say by chaining the kid in the basement for the rest of its life)...but doesn't do it...

...can the parent properly be called malevolent for not doing so?

The riddle is cute...and contains some gems...but it has simplistic and illogical aspects also. And this is one of 'em. And unfortunately for Epicurus, it destroys the thrust of the rest of the riddle.
0 Replies
 
primergray
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 07:57 pm
Sorry, binny, can't fight with you since I always agree with you.

Have fun with Frank. He's one of the best.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 08:08 pm
Gee Frank, you are beginning to sound like Little Bessie's mama. Very Happy

Little Bessie by Mark Twain
Quote:
Little Bessie was nearly three years old. She was a good child, and not shallow, not frivolous, but meditative and thoughtful, and much given to thinking out the reasons of things and trying to make them harmonise with results. One day she said --

"Mamma, why is there so much pain and sorrow and suffering? What is it all for?"

It was an easy question, and mamma had no difficulty in answering it:

"It is for our good, my child. In His wisdom and mercy the Lord sends us these afflictions to discipline us and make us better."

"Is it He that sends them?"

"Yes."

"Does He send all of them, mamma?"

"Yes, dear, all of them. None of them comes by accident; He alone sends them, and always out of love for us, and to make us better."

"Isn't it strange!"

"Strange? Why, no, I have never thought of it in that way. I have not heard any one call it strange before. It has always seemed natural and right to me, and wise and most kindly and merciful."

"Who first thought of it like that, mamma? Was it you?"

"Oh, no, child, I was taught it."

"Who taught you so, mamma?"

"Why, really, I don't know -- I can't remember. My mother, I suppose; or the preacher. But it's a thing that everybody knows."

"Well, anyway, it does seem strange. Did He give Billy Norris the typhus?"

"Yes."

"What for?"

"Why, to discipline him and make him good."

"But he died, mamma, and so it couldn't make him good."

"Well, then, I suppose it was for some other reason. We know it was a good reason, whatever it was."

"What do you think it was, mamma?"

"Oh, you ask so many questions! I think; it was to discipline his parents."

"Well, then, it wasn't fair, mamma. Why should his life be taken away for their sake, when he wasn't doing anything?"

"Oh, I don't know! I only know it was for a good and wise and merciful reason."

"What reason, mamma?"

"I think -- I think -- well, it was a judgment; it was to punish them for some sin they had committed."

"But he was the one that was punished, mamma. Was that right?"

"Certainly, certainly. He does nothing that isn't right and wise and merciful. You can't understand these things now, dear, but when you are grown up you will understand them, and then you will see that they are just and wise."

After a pause:

"Did He make the roof fall in on the stranger that was trying to save the crippled old woman from the fire, mamma?"

"Yes, my child. Wait! Don't ask me why, because I don't know. I only know it was to discipline some one, or be a judgment upon somebody, or to show His power."

"That drunken man that stuck a pitchfork into Mrs. Welch's baby when -- "

"Never mind about it, you needn't go into particulars; it was as to discipline the child -- that much is certain, anyway."

"Mamma, Mr. Burgess said in his sermon that billions of little creatures are sent into us to give us cholera, and typhoid, and lockjaw, and more than a thousand other sicknesses and -- mamma, does He send them?"

"Oh, certainly, child, certainly. Of course."

"What for?"

"Oh, to discipline us! haven't I told you so, over and over again?"

"It's awful cruel, mamma! And silly! and if I -- "

"Hush, oh hush! do you want to bring the lightning?"

"You know the lightning did come last week, mamma, and struck the new church, and burnt it down. Was it to discipline the church?"

(Wearily). "Oh, I suppose so."

"But it killed a hog that wasn't doing anything. Was it to discipline the hog, mamma?"

"Dear child, don't you want to run out and play a while? If you would like to -- "

"Mama, only think! Mr. Hollister says there isn't a bird or fish or reptile or any other animal that hasn't got an enemy that Providence has sent to bite it and chase it and pester it, and kill it, and suck; its blood and discipline it and make it good and religious. Is that true, mother -- because if it is true, why did Mr. Hollister laugh at it?"

"That Hollister is a scandalous person, and I don't want you to listen to anything he says."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 05:25 am
mesquite wrote:
Gee Frank, you are beginning to sound like Little Bessie's mama. Very Happy

Little Bessie by Mark Twain
Quote:
Little Bessie was nearly three years old. She was a good child, and not shallow, not frivolous, but meditative and thoughtful, and much given to thinking out the reasons of things and trying to make them harmonise with results. One day she said --

"Mamma, why is there so much pain and sorrow and suffering? What is it all for?"

It was an easy question, and mamma had no difficulty in answering it:

"It is for our good, my child. In His wisdom and mercy the Lord sends us these afflictions to discipline us and make us better."

"Is it He that sends them?"

"Yes."

"Does He send all of them, mamma?"

"Yes, dear, all of them. None of them comes by accident; He alone sends them, and always out of love for us, and to make us better."

"Isn't it strange!"

"Strange? Why, no, I have never thought of it in that way. I have not heard any one call it strange before. It has always seemed natural and right to me, and wise and most kindly and merciful."

"Who first thought of it like that, mamma? Was it you?"

"Oh, no, child, I was taught it."

"Who taught you so, mamma?"

"Why, really, I don't know -- I can't remember. My mother, I suppose; or the preacher. But it's a thing that everybody knows."

"Well, anyway, it does seem strange. Did He give Billy Norris the typhus?"

"Yes."

"What for?"

"Why, to discipline him and make him good."

"But he died, mamma, and so it couldn't make him good."

"Well, then, I suppose it was for some other reason. We know it was a good reason, whatever it was."

"What do you think it was, mamma?"

"Oh, you ask so many questions! I think; it was to discipline his parents."

"Well, then, it wasn't fair, mamma. Why should his life be taken away for their sake, when he wasn't doing anything?"

"Oh, I don't know! I only know it was for a good and wise and merciful reason."

"What reason, mamma?"

"I think -- I think -- well, it was a judgment; it was to punish them for some sin they had committed."

"But he was the one that was punished, mamma. Was that right?"

"Certainly, certainly. He does nothing that isn't right and wise and merciful. You can't understand these things now, dear, but when you are grown up you will understand them, and then you will see that they are just and wise."

After a pause:

"Did He make the roof fall in on the stranger that was trying to save the crippled old woman from the fire, mamma?"

"Yes, my child. Wait! Don't ask me why, because I don't know. I only know it was to discipline some one, or be a judgment upon somebody, or to show His power."

"That drunken man that stuck a pitchfork into Mrs. Welch's baby when -- "

"Never mind about it, you needn't go into particulars; it was as to discipline the child -- that much is certain, anyway."

"Mamma, Mr. Burgess said in his sermon that billions of little creatures are sent into us to give us cholera, and typhoid, and lockjaw, and more than a thousand other sicknesses and -- mamma, does He send them?"

"Oh, certainly, child, certainly. Of course."

"What for?"

"Oh, to discipline us! haven't I told you so, over and over again?"

"It's awful cruel, mamma! And silly! and if I -- "

"Hush, oh hush! do you want to bring the lightning?"

"You know the lightning did come last week, mamma, and struck the new church, and burnt it down. Was it to discipline the church?"

(Wearily). "Oh, I suppose so."

"But it killed a hog that wasn't doing anything. Was it to discipline the hog, mamma?"

"Dear child, don't you want to run out and play a while? If you would like to -- "

"Mama, only think! Mr. Hollister says there isn't a bird or fish or reptile or any other animal that hasn't got an enemy that Providence has sent to bite it and chase it and pester it, and kill it, and suck; its blood and discipline it and make it good and religious. Is that true, mother -- because if it is true, why did Mr. Hollister laugh at it?"

"That Hollister is a scandalous person, and I don't want you to listen to anything he says."


Nah...I don't sound like her at all.

She is talking about "why things are the way they are."

That is what you were doing.

I was merely pointing out possible alternatives. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » In the mood for a fight? I am!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 02:09:26