Re: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth

On 13 Apr 2006 19:21:15 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 3 Apr 2006 19:09:35 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 21 Mar 2006 13:48:18 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:



Why would this Supreme Being, an intelligent, self-aware,
self-determinant being, subscribe to an all-is-designed or nothing-is
strategy when creating this universe?

So you think it is possible to only design some things?

Oh, yes. You do it all the time. Have you ever mowed your lawn,
tended a part of your garden, and let the rest of the garden to develop
naturally? Well, maybe God did the same thing with this universe.

Fine, you have now defind part of your dishonesty.


And a Supreme Being is needed.

Nope. Not at all.

If you have ever told someone to NOT do
something immoral and expected them to obey because of the inherent
goodness or lack thereof of that particular action, then you have shown
a need for a Supreme Being.

No, I've show a natural need to cooperate.

And if someone does NOT want to cooperate?

Society deals with then. It works for many of the higher animals
including us.


This is so because it is this Supreme
Being who alone can pass down standards of morality which all humanity
has to follow.

So the fact that people who had never heard of your god actually had
better moral standard than the so-called christians who "discovered"
them has escaped you?

What does someone's lack of obedience to a given set of laws and
another's better obedience have anything to do with the laws themselves
or the One who create them?

Because it shows the stupidity of claims there is a set of divine
laws.

Let's face it, follow the divine laws of your bible and we would still
have the evils of slavery and capital punishment.



If morality is simply a human construct, then any action is permissible
if the majority says so...

Yes, that is exactly what has happened in the past. Women were (and in
may cases still are) teated as second class citizens because of the
religious beliefs of people like you.

Not by people like me,

So you don't obey the divine laws of your god?

I can honestly say that. If you don't like the
many Christians whom you have encountered, please don't assume that I
am like them because I call myself a Christian.

Are you claiming that you can pick and mix what parts of the bible law
you keep?

And you make my point for me here. The majority, at the time, deemed
that it was good to treat women as second-class citizens. It was
"moral" for them to do so because they were the majority and the
majority dictates morality.

That is clearly show throughout your bible. It was written by
primitive men to reflect the world view of primitive men. Not
surprising then that it has little if any relivence to people in the
21st century.

If you had lived then, you, yourself, would have subscribed to an
immoral position because you wanted women to be treated better than
second-class citizens. You would have been in the wrong. What could
you have possibly said to them to get them to change? You certainly
couldn't have invoked "morality".

No, the only way for a person in your position to have declared that
treating women as second-class citizens was immoral would be to invoke
the laws of God.

But the very laws of your god are the laws that define women as second
class.

But, you don't believe in God; so, I guess you would
have been without a moral reply.

Morals have noting to do with you god - he is arguably one of the most
amoral gods ever invented.


and the inherent evilness of the action which
you despise is simply a figment of your imagination.

Good and evil exist as defind by man.

And when there are 6 billion different definitions of evil as there are
thought to be 6 billion humans on the planet, from where would you get
your moral authority to tell others that they SHOULD change?

From the people.


Now, because of
your own common sense, you know that some actions just are plain evil,

Do I? Maybe so. But society gives me a guideline to follow.

And when society says that slavery and treating women as slaves is a
good thing, do you deviate from that societal guideline?

Which is of course exactly what your holy book tells you is correct.

Now, ask
yourself why you would deviate if society declares good and evil.

How do you make up your mind which of your god's rules you will no
longer follow?

My friend, there is something in you, and in all of us, that knows
inherently the basics of good and evil. And it isn't something written
into our genetic code.

Well it certainly isn't something written in your dysfunctional bible.


regardless of what others say. How can that be, if there is no Supreme
Being who has designed this into the universe?

Well as there is no SB....



Supposing that there is a Creator, he would presumably have created all
of the universe, including the gazillions of places in which there can
be no life. So it's not clear to me why we should infer anything from
the fact that there is life on some planets (at least one). Clearly the
Creator, if there is one, is just as interested in creating empty
space.

That is a good conclusion.

How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there? How many
planets are there? How many of those planets are completely
inhospitable to life as we know it? How much of the universe consists
of vast stretches of emptiness which doesn't allow life as we know it?
Why should the fact that there is life as we know it on the Earth show
that the universe was designed?

We can conclude that, at a minimum, the planets with life on them were
designed,

We can conclude nothing of the sort as there is no evidence to base
such a daft conclusion on.

No evidence? Boy, are you a tough judge of what is evidence. And a
daft one at that. :-)

Still, after all this time, you cannot bring forth a scap of evidence
for your god. Why? Easy, because there is none. Far better men than
you or I have tried to find some and failed. So don't feel too bad,
you haven't let your god down(much) it was the primitive men who
invented him that let him down - but they were not to know science
would come up with explainations for the things they tried to use a
god to explain.

If you ask yourself the above questions and honestly answer them, then
you will see for yourself a piece of evidence that the Supreme Being
must exist.

I have honestly answered them. You evil god doesn't exist.



given the scarcity of life throughout the universe

Evidence?

When was the last time we found life outside of this planet?

For firk sake give us a chance man! Next year only marks the 50th
aniversary of our first object in space.

What we have already proven is that the building blocks of life are
very widespread.

Ah yes! The idea that life can spontaneously develop anywhere that
water, energy, and gravity exist.

Water, maybe, energy, yes, but why gravity?

Wishful thinking at best. I'm still
waiting for any scientist to force an instance of abiogenesis under
controlled conditions.

It took a world-wide lab a few million years to hit the right mix.


If life
was THAT abundant, then we would have seen, heard, sensed, or found
evidence of something by now. The bottom line is that you have zero
evidence, other than inference from subjective statistical chance, that
life exists elsewhere.

If your god existed then we would have seen, heard, sensed, or found
evidence for him by now. The bottom line is that you have zero
evidence, other than you holy book, that he exists.

I have seen and heard angels.

Then you need treatment.

I have sensed His supernatural presence.

Then you need treatment.

I have found the archaeological, philosophical, and cosmological
evidence of His intercession with this universe.

Liar!

Maybe you haven't
studied the Biblical accounts where it shows specifically what to look
for.

I may not, myself, have done so - but a great many others have. Guess
what - ZERO evidence for your god.



and the
nearly infinitestimal chance that life was naturally and spontaneously
created on this planet.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any less of a lie.

You got that right. That's why so many people are fighting to get an
alternative to Darwinism in the schools. Any alternative. Lies hate
competition.

One reason creationism has died over the last 150 years, Died to the
point where The Archbishop of Canterbury rejects it.

Well, by all means. Let's invoke the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Certainly, they are infallible and their adherents are beyond
reproach. Whatever.

Better still, let's invoke science and common sense.


Not that all the aspects of Darwinism are lies; but, the
conclusion that we evolved from a proto-bacteria is.

No it isn't. It is a well proven fact.

It's nothing more than an inferred guess, and you know it. Is it
testable? is it repeatable? Is it viewable?

Yes, it is testable, yes it may be repeatable (given an earthlike
planet adn 4 billion years) and yes it is viewable - in the fossil
record.



Why wouldn't it be just as justified in
saying that the universe can't be designed since there can be no life
as we know it on Mercury, Jupiter and any number of other planets, plus
the empty space and all of the stars? Why should we make conclusions
based on the minority of inhabited planets and not the uninhabited
majority?

Ah! You have made the conclusion that, for purposes of this
discussion, life (especially intelligent life) has no more or less
importance than particles of dust on an asteroid somehwere. Well, if
that is your conclusion, then I can see how our existence would not
mean anything in the analysis of whether the universe was designed or
not.

Define "important" in the way you are using it?

Objective value outside of our own minds.

In that case, no. We are dust - star dust.

You have so little opinion of humanity.

We are nothing more than the most intelligent ape this planet has so
far produced. There is nothing at all special about us.





What is more unlikely? That out of the vast number of planets in the
universe there are some planets that allow life, or that all the
billions of planets happen to be placed in such a way that life is not
possible?

Uh, how about this: that this universe was set up to allow life on
only a few planets. It's not that the other planets were placed to
prevent life. It's just that a few planets were placed/allowed
naturally to exist where life is possible.

Planets are not placed or allowed.

All hail the god of random chance and natural process.

There is no god.

What would happen if you called out to God, honestly, and He answered
you somehow?

how can he, he doesn't exist.


Allow me to interject some theology:

"[fools] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
Amen." - Romans 1:25

There is no truth in your god.

--
Bob.

Now THAT was to most irrational statement that you've ever made.

Why? There is not truth in your god. A proven liar, an evil ***, a
mass murderer beyond measure, racked by jealousy and demanding of
worship he doesn't earn.

--
Bob.

.