Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2090257 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-14 12:41 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-04-28 19:18 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-14 12:41 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-04-14 13:55 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 15:53 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 15:58 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-14 15:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-15 09:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> - 2016-04-17 12:12 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-17 17:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 15:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-04-21 15:51 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-21 17:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-21 22:19 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-04-24 12:53 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-04-24 13:54 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-04-24 13:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-24 23:06 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-25 09:47 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-26 14:42 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-27 15:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-27 14:47 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-27 18:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-27 18:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 03:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-28 15:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-28 11:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 10:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-28 14:32 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:07 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-29 12:25 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-29 16:37 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-28 19:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-29 13:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-04-29 14:45 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-30 09:06 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 00:25 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 11:16 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-28 14:30 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 13:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 14:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-28 16:12 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-28 19:41 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 21:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-04-28 23:51 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-28 16:05 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:13 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:10 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-28 14:00 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-28 19:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-29 03:39 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-29 00:45 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-29 15:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-29 13:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-29 15:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 17:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-30 16:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 16:29 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 16:17 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-26 16:46 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 16:31 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 16:09 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 00:31 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? bilgat@m.nu - 2016-04-28 08:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 11:25 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-28 11:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-28 11:39 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-29 13:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-29 14:40 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-30 09:11 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-30 17:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-01 09:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-01 16:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-03 12:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-05-03 11:55 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-30 17:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-01 09:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-05-01 16:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-05-03 12:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? JimmyJohn <Non@Jtheist.net> - 2016-05-01 10:14 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-28 19:18 -0400
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 12:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? |
| Message-ID | <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me> |
On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote:
> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>> alt.atheism with message-id
>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist.
>>>>
>>>> More superstition-based threats.
>>>
>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't
>>> win.
>>
>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the
>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects
>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should
>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same
>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it).
>>
> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so
> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever
> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3
> KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying?
>
Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written
in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language
(Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original
meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are
all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who
believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive.
Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness
of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so
that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and
my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories
people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they
connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable.
If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have
to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that
made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without
scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 13:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1i7s3lhajloa0.m1lk11n803j$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #2090257 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:41:19 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in<news:neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me> in alt.atheism,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy: > On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: >> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >>>>> alt.atheism with message-id >>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. >>>>> >>>>> More superstition-based threats. >>>> >>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't >>>> win. >>> >>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the >>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects >>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should >>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same >>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). >>> >> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the >> text: "God so loved the world that he gave his only >> begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not >> perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 KJV) This is >> the English of the 1600s. Actually, in the authorized edition of 1611 it reads: ¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. And this was already slightly archaic compared with the early 17th century vernacular language. >> What is he saying? > Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was > probably written in what, Greek or Latin, and that was > translated from another language (Aramaic?). It was written in Greek. The best guess is that it was written around the year 100 CE, give or take a decade. It was an original composition. It drew on a variety of sources, including Greek philosophical tradition. [...] Brian -- It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss, haggisss.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 15:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pilgrim2-8ED343.15531014042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2090306 |
In article <1i7s3lhajloa0.m1lk11n803j$.dlg@40tude.net>, "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:41:19 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. > Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote > in<news:neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me> in > alt.atheism,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astrono > my: > > > On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > >> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, > >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > >>>>> alt.atheism with message-id > >>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > >>>>> > >>>>> More superstition-based threats. > >>>> > >>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you > >>>> can't > >>>> win. > >>> > >>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > >>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > >>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > >>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > >>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > >>> > > >> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the > >> text: "God so loved the world that he gave his only > >> begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not > >> perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 KJV) This is > >> the English of the 1600s. > > Actually, in the authorized edition of 1611 it reads: > > ś For God so loued ţe world, that he gaue his only > begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, > should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. > > And this was already slightly archaic compared with the > early 17th century vernacular language. > > >> What is he saying? > > > Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was > > probably written in what, Greek or Latin, and that was > > translated from another language (Aramaic?). > > It was written in Greek. The best guess is that it was > written around the year 100 CE, give or take a decade. It > was an original composition. It drew on a variety of > sources, including Greek philosophical tradition. > > [...] > > Brian NOT ENOUGH. AS I asked the other poster. What does the text say? How do you interpret the passage? Both of you are ignoring the message because you are pricked in your heart and convinced of the verity of the Bible. -- http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nep9dm$ct2$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2090459 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:53:10 -0700, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > In article <1i7s3lhajloa0.m1lk11n803j$.dlg@40tude.net>, > "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:41:19 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. >> Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote >> in<news:neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me> in >> alt.atheism,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astrono >> my: >> >> > On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: >> >> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, >> >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: >> >>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in >> >>>>> alt.atheism with message-id >> >>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> More superstition-based threats. >> >>>> >> >>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and >> >>>> you can't win. >> >>> >> >>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are >> >>> the >> >>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many >> >>> sects of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why >> >>> should anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The >> >>> Bible" -- same problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations >> >>> of it). >> >>> >> >>> >> >> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so >> >> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever >> >> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John >> >> 3 KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. >> >> Actually, in the authorized edition of 1611 it reads: >> >> ¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: >> that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue >> euerlasting life. >> >> And this was already slightly archaic compared with the early 17th >> century vernacular language. >> >> >> What is he saying? >> >> > Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably >> > written in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another >> > language (Aramaic?). >> >> It was written in Greek. The best guess is that it was written around >> the year 100 CE, give or take a decade. It was an original >> composition. It drew on a variety of sources, including Greek >> philosophical tradition. >> >> [...] >> >> Brian > NOT ENOUGH. AS I asked the other poster. What does the text say? Who gives a flying fuck what a fairy tale says? > How do you interpret the passage? Why would anyone sane want to interpret a passage in a fairy tale? > Both of you are ignoring the message because It's bullshit. > you are pricked in your heart and convinced of the verity of the > Bible. Your prick is attached to your head, dickhead. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfbbce$jf6$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #2090459 |
In article <pilgrim2-8ED343.15531014042016@news.giganews.com>, Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> said: > NOT ENOUGH. AS I asked the other poster. What does the text say? > How do you interpret the passage? Both of you are ignoring the > message because you are pricked in your heart and convinced of the > verity of the Bible. If we don't have reason to believe that the message came from some supernatural entity that we should be worried about, then figuring out what it _means_ is just an academic exercise on the same order as arguing Kirk vs. Picard. Except that Star Trek was at least occasionally *interesting*, while your holy book is mostly just a bad read. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 15:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pilgrim2-668ADA.15464314042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2090257 |
In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, > > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > > >> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > >>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > >>>> alt.atheism with message-id > >>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > >>>>> > >>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > >>>> > >>>> More superstition-based threats. > >>> > >>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't > >>> win. > >> > >> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > >> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > >> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > >> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > >> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > >> > > AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so > > loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever > > believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 > > KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? > > > > Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written > in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language > (Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original > meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are > all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who > believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive. > > > Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness > of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so > that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and > my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories > people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they > connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable. > > If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have > to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that > made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without > scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. > NOT ENOUGH You stated <sic>so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). I ask again WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION? (John 3:16 above) Jimbo -- http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 09:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <neqrdo$git$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2090458 |
On 4/14/16 6:46 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote:
> In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote:
>>> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in
>>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More superstition-based threats.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you can't
>>>>> win.
>>>>
>>>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the
>>>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects
>>>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should
>>>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same
>>>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it).
>>>>
>>> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so
>>> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever
>>> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3
>>> KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying?
>>>
>>
>> Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written
>> in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language
>> (Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original
>> meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are
>> all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who
>> believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive.
>>
>>
>> Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness
>> of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so
>> that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and
>> my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories
>> people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they
>> connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable.
>>
>> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have
>> to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that
>> made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without
>> scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible.
>>
> NOT ENOUGH You stated <sic>so many Bible versions and interpretations of
> it). I ask again WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION? (John 3:16 above)
> Jimbo
>
I did, if you read above. My interpretation would be "Believe in this
guy and you will be immortal". Which leads me to the question of where
all those immortal people are, since surely SOME people must have
believed in the two thousand years or so since.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaptain Krunch <pilgrim2@polypen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pilgrim2-92C078.12122117042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2090714 |
In article <neqrdo$git$1@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > On 4/14/16 6:46 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>, > > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > > >> On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > >>> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, > >>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > >>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id > >>>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> More superstition-based threats. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you > >>>>> can't > >>>>> win. > >>>> > >>>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > >>>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > >>>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > >>>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > >>>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > >>>> > >>> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so > >>> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever > >>> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 > >>> KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? > >>> > >> > >> Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written > >> in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language > >> (Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original > >> meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are > >> all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who > >> believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive. > >> > >> > >> Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness > >> of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so > >> that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and > >> my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories > >> people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they > >> connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable. > >> > >> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have > >> to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that > >> made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without > >> scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. > >> > > NOT ENOUGH You stated <sic>so many Bible versions and interpretations of > > it). I ask again WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION? (John 3:16 above) > > Jimbo > > > > > I did, if you read above. My interpretation would be "Believe in this > guy and you will be immortal". Which leads me to the question of where > all those immortal people are, since surely SOME people must have > believed in the two thousand years or so since. > AGREED (your interpretation) although it is a little rough. Jimbo -- http://www.olypen.com/gerrit/index.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57143113.2F64@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #2091948 |
Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > In article <neqrdo$git$1@dont-email.me>, > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > > On 4/14/16 6:46 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > > In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>, > > > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On 4/13/16 8:15 PM, Kaptain Krunch wrote: > > >>> In article <nem9or$uet$2@dont-email.me>, > > >>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, duke wrote: > > >>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:23:51 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> in > > >>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id > > >>>>>> <9krpgb58m1ga8ll49355p4d2qm6ab33329@4ax.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> You're that much closer to the flames. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I do intend to be cremated, remember? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> That's just short-term precooking for the atheist. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> More superstition-based threats. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Well, yes, I'm easy. You're going to have to deal with God and you > > >>>>> can't > > >>>>> win. > > >>>> > > >>>> You assume that not only does God exist, but that you actually are the > > >>>> guy with the right interpretation of what he wants. Given how many sects > > >>>> of Christianity alone, let alone other religions, exist, why should > > >>>> anyone believe that you've got it right? (don't say "The Bible" -- same > > >>>> problem, so many Bible versions and interpretations of it). > > >>>> > > >>> AGREED. So what is YOUR interpretation? Here is the text: "God so > > >>> loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever > > >>> believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3 > > >>> KJV) This is the English of the 1600s. What is he saying? > > >>> > > >> > > >> Well, that's a 1600s interpretation of a text that was probably written > > >> in what, Greek or Latin, and that was translated from another language > > >> (Aramaic?). So I'm not sure that it's even coming close to the original > > >> meaning. If *I* were reading that, my question would be "then where are > > >> all these immortal people that should be around?", since anyone who > > >> believed in Jesus and his God should be still alive. > > >> > > >> > > >> Note that my personal view is that of someone raised with no awareness > > >> of active religion until I was in my very late teens or early 20s, so > > >> that as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the Bible and > > >> my D'Aulaire's Greek Myths or Grimm's Fairy Tales. They're stories > > >> people told that had significance to them, but exactly how they > > >> connected with anything real is often unknown, and sometimes unknowable. > > >> > > >> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll have > > >> to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a way that > > >> made just believing in them without evidence (and old books without > > >> scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. > > >> > > > NOT ENOUGH You stated <sic>so many Bible versions and interpretations of > > > it). I ask again WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION? (John 3:16 above) > > > Jimbo > > > > > > > > > I did, if you read above. My interpretation would be "Believe in this > > guy and you will be immortal". Which leads me to the question of where > > all those immortal people are, since surely SOME people must have > > believed in the two thousand years or so since. I bet you look like your parents...why is that? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfbaos$brh$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #2090257 |
In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll
> have to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a
> way that made just believing in them without evidence (and old
> books without scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible.
But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I think
that logically it's impossible[1] -- all any being could *prove* is
that can do some things that we can't (yet). Any alleged proof that
he is some *specific* person, e.g., the Yahoo-Wahoo of biblical
fame, *must* fail because we possess the meta-knowledge that a
sufficiently powerful being can produce perfect forgeries --
'perfect' in the sense that it's far beyond our ability to detect it
as counterfeit -- of any evidence we might ask for, up to and
including a library card that says "God".
(And that's leaving out entirely the additional meta-knowledge we
possess that any sufficiently powerful being could simply rewrite
our minds so that we *think* he's presented us with perfect evidence
of his identity, or of anything else he might want us to believe.)
-----------
*1: Bringing us to the *delightful* paradox that if God really is
as all-powerful as his documentation claims then by definition
the one thing he *can't* do is prove that he's God... :-)
-- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 15:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <naednfFfsNvRoITKnZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #2093829 |
On 2016-04-21, William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said: >> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll >> have to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a >> way that made just believing in them without evidence (and old >> books without scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. > > But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I think > that logically it's impossible[1] -- all any being could *prove* is > that can do some things that we can't (yet). Any alleged proof that > he is some *specific* person, e.g., the Yahoo-Wahoo of biblical > fame, *must* fail because we possess the meta-knowledge that a > sufficiently powerful being can produce perfect forgeries -- > 'perfect' in the sense that it's far beyond our ability to detect it > as counterfeit -- of any evidence we might ask for, up to and > including a library card that says "God". > > (And that's leaving out entirely the additional meta-knowledge we > possess that any sufficiently powerful being could simply rewrite > our minds so that we *think* he's presented us with perfect evidence > of his identity, or of anything else he might want us to believe.) > > ----------- > *1: Bringing us to the *delightful* paradox that if God really is > as all-powerful as his documentation claims then by definition > the one thing he *can't* do is prove that he's God... :-) Which brings in the theological version of set theory's Reflection Principle, by St. Gregory (though Rudy Rucker is where I found it, not in his SF either) - "No matter how far our mind may have progressed in the contemplation of God, it does not attain to what He is, but to what is beneath him.". The principle here being that we can't actually fully imagine Him, it's too big a concept; anything we imagine - and thus any test one could imagine to disprove God-ness - could also be fitted by (or gotten around by) entities on a lesser scale. (I'd sorta like to hear Dorothy's thoughts on this also; not only because I don't think we've heard from her for a few days, but cuz this touches on some of her areas, AND cuz I wanna know how the Interior Life Webhome Insertion Project is going.) Dave, very hard to get to from below -- \/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 17:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfbfv9$73c$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #2093864 |
In article <naednfFfsNvRoITKnZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@earthlink.com>, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> said: > Which brings in the theological version of set theory's Reflection > Principle, by St. Gregory (though Rudy Rucker is where I found it, > not in his SF either) - "No matter how far our mind may have > progressed in the contemplation of God, it does not attain to what > He is, but to what is beneath him.". The principle here being that > we can't actually fully imagine Him, it's too big a concept; > anything we imagine - and thus any test one could imagine to > disprove God-ness - could also be fitted by (or gotten around by) > entities on a lesser scale. Interesting that St. Gregory saw the effect as a limitation in Man, where I see it as a limitation of God... -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 22:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfc1hu$m9p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2093829 |
On 4/21/16 3:47 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <neoh16$3km$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>
>> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll
>> have to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a
>> way that made just believing in them without evidence (and old
>> books without scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible.
>
> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I think
> that logically it's impossible
If God is literally omnipotent, He knows how to convince me. There will
be some set of events and words that can do so, even if they're ones
that no mortal could think of or arrange.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-24 12:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfitmq$9br$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #2094038 |
In article <nfc1hu$m9p$1@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said: > William December Starr wrote: >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said: >> >>> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll >>> have to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a >>> way that made just believing in them without evidence (and old >>> books without scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. >> >> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I think >> that logically it's impossible > > If God is literally omnipotent, He knows how to convince me. Did you mean "omniscient" there? > There will be some set of events and words that can do so, even if > they're ones that no mortal could think of or arrange. Will there be? I think it hinges on the question of "Can God do *anything*, or can he only do anything that's possible?" -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-24 13:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfj11u$la6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2095298 |
On 4/24/16 12:53 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <nfc1hu$m9p$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>>>
>>>> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll
>>>> have to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a
>>>> way that made just believing in them without evidence (and old
>>>> books without scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible.
>>>
>>> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I think
>>> that logically it's impossible
>>
>> If God is literally omnipotent, He knows how to convince me.
>
> Did you mean "omniscient" there?
Well, both. Though if you're omnipotent, you can grant yourself
Omniscience.
>
>> There will be some set of events and words that can do so, even if
>> they're ones that no mortal could think of or arrange.
>
> Will there be? I think it hinges on the question of "Can God do
> *anything*, or can he only do anything that's possible?"
I would have to say (A) if you can't, then omnipotence isn't what
you've got, and (B) Given how many people of vastly varying backgrounds
and beliefs have converted between one set of beliefs and another, I
have absolutely no reason to believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a set
of words and circumstances that could convert me, or any other human
being. So even with "limited omnipotence" I would expect that God or
even god could probably come up with something to do the job.
>
> -- wds
>
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-24 13:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ttednXVv_Lu_jIDKnZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #2095298 |
On 2016-04-24, William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:> >> If God is literally omnipotent, He knows how to convince me. > > Did you mean "omniscient" there? Mmmmm, no, 'omnipotent' works; it would mean that God can figure out how to convince Ryk, right? >> There will be some set of events and words that can do so, even if >> they're ones that no mortal could think of or arrange. > > Will there be? I think it hinges on the question of "Can God do > *anything*, or can he only do anything that's possible?" Well, Ryk seems to think it's possible, and we sorta have to take his word for it, since direct neural taps aren't feasible yet. Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-24 23:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <571DB3D5.5B8D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #2095298 |
William December Starr wrote: > > In article <nfc1hu$m9p$1@dont-email.me>, > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said: > > > William December Starr wrote: > >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> said: > >> > >>> If God gives a crap about whether I believe in Him/Her/It, they'll > >>> have to show me directly, because they made sure I was raised in a > >>> way that made just believing in them without evidence (and old > >>> books without scientific backing aren't evidence) impossible. > >> > >> But: what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I think > >> that logically it's impossible > > > > If God is literally omnipotent, He knows how to convince me. > > Did you mean "omniscient" there? > > > There will be some set of events and words that can do so, even if > > they're ones that no mortal could think of or arrange. > > Will there be? I think it hinges on the question of "Can God do > *anything*, or can he only do anything that's possible?" > > -- wds You mean can God make a rock so heavy that even He cannot pick it up????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <571E3740.1FF6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #2095636 |
in the old days yous use to sit around the campfire and talk about the god of thunder, thor.. yous haven't changed much today.. now yous sit around the campfire talking about FLYING SAUCERS and aliens from outer space. You keep looking up in the sky searching for... someone watching you. You come to the conclusion there is no God, there are just flying saucers and aliens from outer space living on... any of the billions of earths yous made up. Have you've been to.. Atheist City on planet super earth just off the coast of Pluto?? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 09:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <571E4A3E.45A6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #2095828 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > in the old days > yous use to > sit around the > campfire > and talk about > the god of thunder, thor.. > > yous haven't > changed much today.. > > now yous sit around > the campfire talking about > > FLYING SAUCERS and > > aliens from outer space. > > You keep looking > up in the sky > searching for... > someone > watching > you. The truth is... yous people are still sitting around the campfire making up stories.. now you call it science fiction and The Big Bang.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <571FE0E3.5073@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #2095860 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > in the old days > > yous use to > > sit around the > > campfire > > and talk about > > the god of thunder, thor.. > > > > yous haven't > > changed much today.. > > > > now yous sit around > > the campfire talking about > > > > FLYING SAUCERS and > > > > aliens from outer space. > > > > You keep looking > > up in the sky > > searching for... > > someone > > watching > > you. > > The truth is... > yous people are > still sitting > around the campfire > making up stories.. > > now you call it > science fiction and > The Big Bang. yous make up stories about life on other planets and aliens....but where is the evidence? where is the proof?? you no difference from guys making up stories about god of thunder. (my favorite comic book, Thor) "There is no God" is just another made up story...in atheist comic books that they read to their children. This is how atheist talk to their children... Athiest Son: "Dad, is there a God?" Atheist Dad: "There's no fuckin god, leame me alone you stupid kid!!!" Atheist Son: "Where's the proof that theres no God, Dad?" Atheist Dad: "GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE YOU STUPID KID, YOU'RE JUST LIKE YOUR FUCKIN MOTHER!!!!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web