666...the Devils Moving Average

Doubter · Oct 16, 2003

So drop the bullshit and either address MY CASE, or concede that
you cannot and that god must be held negligent for THE SAME REASONS
the man who stands idly by is held negligent.

peace

axeman
___________________________________________

The man would and should have an opportunity to present His side of the case and God should too. God should have the same opportunity to present the facts as He has knowledge of them before being criticized and comdemned. You may be His accuser but as such you do not have the right to reject His testimony and defense. If you fancy yourself the judge in this case then you have ruled before both sides have been heard and also are acting without authority. The verdict was NOT benevolent, guitly as charged and sentenced to rejection and ridicule.

darkhorse · Oct 16, 2003

Quote from LongShot:

it's not too surprising the # of believers that cannot make a reasonable cogent case for their beliefs. all they ever have is touchy feely stuff to offer up for support. this will not move me.

say what?

how is it touchy feely to ask for a brief restatement of the case so that i don't have to wade through pages of rabbit trails to find the key point being debated?

and why would you expect a simple inquiry to "move you" in the first place?

darkhorse · Oct 16, 2003

Quote from Doubter:

So drop the bullshit and either address MY CASE, or concede that
you cannot and that god must be held negligent for THE SAME REASONS
the man who stands idly by is held negligent.

must be held negligent by who, and to what effect?
you might as well hold time and space in contempt.

also, if you are unwilling to accept the possibility that God exists why would his characteristics matter at all anyway- and why would the positive or negative aspects of his characteristics have any bearing on the possibility of his existence in the first place?

LongShot · Oct 16, 2003

Quote from darkhorse:

say what?

how is it touchy feely to ask for a brief restatement of the case so that i don't have to wade through pages of rabbit trails to find the key point being debated?

and why would you expect a simple inquiry to "move you" in the first place?

i wasnt addressing you darkhorse but now that you mention it you havent given us your position yet. where do you stand on this?

Glad to see you get into the fray we need a heavy hitter to liven things up a bit. can you handle two threads, i'd love to see you on the Atkins diet thread.

darkhorse · Oct 16, 2003

Quote from LongShot:

i wasnt addressing you darkhorse but now that you mention it you havent given us your position yet. where do you stand on this?

Glad to see you get into the fray we need a heavy hitter to liven things up a bit. can you handle two threads, i'd love to see you on the Atkins diet thread.

Where do I stand on what? Not trying to be flip, I'm just not sure what the real point of contention is here... if you're asking whether I would seek to absolve God of passive responsibility for pain and death in the world, the answer is no... but if you ask me whether I would prefer a world in which the challenges weren't real and the consequences weren't real because there was always a soft landing I would say no as well... we all know there is no reward without risk, and you aren't truly flying unless you can fall... there are so many potential implications, connections and complexities that it's hard to scratch the surface without serious contemplation

Gordon Gekko · Oct 17, 2003

here's a great example of typical religious crap:

after 9/11/01, bill o'reilly (fox news) said it must be divine intervention when NY was looking to win the world series. however, when they lost, he didn't say anything! haha!!

that's correct, after NY lost, he did not call it divine intervention any more. he was so sure there was more to it than coincidence before they lost though!

btw, this is coming from someone who watches the o'reilly factor.

Gordon Gekko · Oct 17, 2003

from http://www.celebatheists.com

Bill Gates

"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates "His face suddenly becomes expressionless," writes Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis."

"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates. "I don't have any evidence of that."

EDIT: THIS IS POST #666 IN THIS THREAD.

axeman · Oct 17, 2003

"must be held negligent by who,"

Any reasonable person.

" and to what effect? "

Who cares.

"you might as well hold time and space in contempt."

Bad comparison.
Time and space cannot be held morally responsible for
their actions or inaction.

"also, if you are unwilling to accept the possibility that God exists "

Who said I wasn't? I've explicitly stated in the past
that it's a possibility.

"why would his characteristics matter at all anyway-
and why would the positive or negative aspects of his characteristics have any bearing on the possibility of his existence in the first place?"

Because they contradict some theists definition of god.

peace

axeman

stu · Oct 17, 2003

Quote from darkhorse:
... we all know there is no reward without risk, and you aren't truly flying unless you can fall... there are so many potential implications, connections and complexities that it's hard to scratch the surface without serious contemplation

The implication of what you say appears to suggest that people must first always and unreservedly believe in God after which the risk and reward can be appraised.

Using your analogy, in order that you may truely fly - first jump off the cliff, against integrity and all the available evidence which indicates an obvious and overwhelming absurdity in such commitment, - after which you then evaluate the risk and rewards of truly flying.

May I suggest if there are many potential implications and complexities ( it's difficult to see what these might be, as the idea itself simply appears irrational) then it is more meaningful to evaluate them before you commit your integrity rather than condemning it to a bad plan.

Especially if on jumping, you then recognize truly flying..... is before you jump.

darkhorse · Oct 17, 2003

Quote from Gordon Gekko:

here's a great example of typical religious crap:

after 9/11/01, bill o'reilly (fox news) said it must be divine intervention when NY was looking to win the world series. however, when they lost, he didn't say anything! haha!!

that's correct, after NY lost, he did not call it divine intervention any more. he was so sure there was more to it than coincidence before they lost though!

btw, this is coming from someone who watches the o'reilly factor.

i doubt o'reilly was serious when he said this- if he was, i agree it was a pretty dumb thing to say.

but what does that have to do with the real questions at hand?

plenty of traders believe (and say) silly things about the markets- does that mean ipso facto that the markets are silly, or that all traders are silly? there's no connection- it's an implied generalization and a logical fallacy to connect the two.