If you are right, and evolution is the only answer, then we will all just be dirt-food when we die. But if you are wrong, and the intelligent design people are right and there is a God, then you’ll be in a tough spot.
By the way, did you ever read what the Kansas School Board had proposed? It doesn’t sound like it from your letter.
California Boy
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
But the Pokey part is more fun, isn’t it?
I’ve read a lot of books, from The Bible to The Tao Of Pooh to Hyperspace by Michio Kaku.
And I’ll keep reading, savvy?
Dear Bobby Joe,
I would like to encourage you to read my post to Laurie on Sep 26th, 2006 at 6:06 pm. Further, I think you would benefit greatly by reading C.S. Lewis’ “Problem of Pain”.
Ms. Nyx,
To Bobby Joe you wrote, “I am living a good and meaningful life simply for the sake of living a good and meaningful life.” - I am certain that you are living a good (moral) life, but you must refrain from using the theistic conclusions. It is impossible for you to live a meaningful life. We have been over this numerous times. I refer you to a post from my good friend Gill on Oct 4th, 2006 at 2:54 pm. She is talking about morals; however, a world without God renders ALL of life meaningless. Therefore, the value of any particular is impossible to measure. Lastly, I refer you to my original post on Sep 24th, 2006 at 3:28 pm, specifically the section detailing the anthropological argument. Bottom line: Without God everything is pointless. All perceived value is an existential illusion.
Dearest Gill,
How is school? Is your teacher still absolutely sure there are no absolutes? Just kidding. Bobby Joe said, “The bible just strictly says be kind to others….†In reply you wrote, “That and that it’s ok to stone a woman for adultery.†- The Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) was designed to show us the severity of sin. It was designed to show us that God is in a dilemma. He cannot tolerate the presence of sin. It’s not that God just doesn’t want to be around sinners. He is, as it were, allergic to sin. Therefore, (listen up Bobby Joe) God does not send people to hell simply because He so desires. He HAS to. Here is a good illustration: Imagine you are a child sitting on the ground playing with toys. God comes over and says, “Can I play?” You say, “No! Go away!” God tries to get you to change your mind; however, you will not. He leaves, but He takes everything with Him. He takes the toys. He even takes the ground. You are left all alone in total darkness. That’s hell. God grants you your desire. He leaves you alone.
If you feel patronized after reading that illustration, I am sorry. Please read my post to Laurie on Sep 26th, 2006 at 6:06 pm.
Peace
Jamie,
About your post on Oct 6th, 2006 at 3:06 am, I really think you have misunderstood me. I do not want to smack anyone.
Oh, and when I wrote “1 x 10157″, I was trying to indicate scientific notation (i.e. 10 to the 157th power). Because I copied that post from a word document, I did not notice that the notation did not carry over. Forgive me.
Peace
Nic! So you’ve returned, eh?
-
Not even gonna bother with the meaningful life debate, because I’ve said my piece on that–though it would appear you missunderstood me…ah well.
-
“God does not send people to hell simply because He so desires. He HAS to.”—Let me get this straight. God gave people freewill, which means that they have the right to do bad, and if they do bad, then they must be punished. Right so far? He punishes them by sending them to hell. But he gave them free-will, which means he gave them the opertunity to do wrong. So isn’t he indirectly responsible for all sin? After all, if he created everything then he created sin. Therefore, when it comes time to be punished for sin, he should at least take PART of the blame….yes, sin came abou via free-will, but god was the one to give people free will in the first place.
-
“He cannot tolerate the presence of sin.”–then why give it the chance to be created in the first place? God’s supposedly all-powerful, surely he could have created humans to be content and happy, with no wrongdoings needed. For example, if homosexuality is so wrong, why create homosexuals? (And before you say it, homosexuality isn’t a ‘choice’…I’m friends with a homosexual person and from as far back as he can remeber–before he was old enough to really know how to ‘choose’ either way–he knew he had some kind of strange, ‘inappropriat feelings’ towards other guys. Besides, when was the last time you woke up and decided, gee, I think I’ll switch sexual orientations today!)
-
“He HAS to”–does he really? And is it really so black and white? Doesn’t seem quite fair, an adulterer being sentanced to the same punishment as a mass-murderer.
-
Lastly, the idea of a god who punishes people for doing wrong is something I DO believe in, if only because it gets me through the day. But on the other side of the coin, I feel he rewards people for doing right. In the end, it’s what you do and how you live that gets you through….after all, insisting that one need worship him to get in would be vain, and is that not the worst of the deadly sins?
-
I missed being able to write huge-ass posts like this….
nic
you say “It’s not that God just doesn’t want to be around sinners. He is, as it were, allergic to sin.â€
So why did he/does he (your God) make so many sinners (fire & brimstone money-grabbing fundi preachers of hate) to worship and speak for him then?
RAmen
>>>”then we will all just be dirt-food when we die.”
The Human Soul is the life-path you live during your time on Earth.
Imagine a pen on paper, writing a beautiful story.
When the pen is lifted, the story remains on the paper for all to read.
The Pen is set aside, and is no longer needed. The Story remains.
So it is with the Human Body. Your life history is immortal, eternal and forever unchangeable. This should make you happy.
The Pen, your flesh, rots in the grave. It no longer matters.
Very poetic, anon….I like the sound of looking at life that way.
Your DNA also lives on in your offspring.
Nic is back!
.
Nic writes “…God is in a dilemma. He cannot tolerate the presence of sin.” If we accept (as I was taught in Sunday school) that God is the omniscient and omnipotent creator of all things, then he must have created sin. If not, then we must admit that there are some things beyond even God.
.
Nic writes “God does not send people to hell simply because He so desires. He HAS to.” Why must an omnipotent God do anything that he doesn’t want to? An omnipotent being can impose his will to create any result he wishes. Therefore, we must conclude that God is not omnipotent. If continue to insist God is omnipotent, then we must conclude that God intends a world with sin for it cannot exist except by His will. So, which is it? Either God is also the God of sin or God is not God.
.
Also, how can God be in a dilemma? An omniscient being knows all and therefore must also know the solution to any dilemma. So, which is it? You can’t have both.
.
I enjoyed your playground analogy. Are you implying that God is child-like? I doubt you are, but I found it an interesting choice. God seems to say, “If you won’t play with me I’m taking my ball and going home! (Stomp! Pout!)” Actually, you said he takes the playground too. Somebody needs a time out.
.
RAmen.
“Imagine you are a child sitting on the ground playing with toys. God comes over and says, “Can I play?†You say, “No! Go away!†God tries to get you to change your mind; however, you will not. He leaves, but He takes everything with Him. He takes the toys. He even takes the ground. You are left all alone in total darkness.”
That kid is a BRAT!!!!
It’s not that God just doesn’t want to be around sinners. He is, as it were, allergic to sin…
What a great Claratin commercial, huh?
Well its time I started back doing some work. I have been all over this site looking for a serious debate on the “hypotheses” (lol) of ID. I found a couple of earlier (mile long) posts from last month on this thread by nic. All I can say is: “Anything is possible if you don’t know what you are talking about”
One Eye Jack,
If God is not both omniscient, omnipotent, Eternally Existing, and the The Creator of all that exists, then I simply do not except him as God. A powerful being yes, God No, now said powerful being maybe able to punish me for not conforming to his tyrannical will but that does not mean he is God.
Listen, it’s very simple.
There is no god, there was no son of god, our being here is a fluke of existence.
Life is a series of chemical reactions, when we die, those chemical reactions cease.
thats it.
there is no deeper meaning, you’re not missing anything.
If every religious person on earth just accepted this, instead of living in denial, and needing the idea of a utopian eternity after death, in order to validate their sad meaningless lives, the world would be a much safer, much more pleasant place.
oh, nic’s back. fabulous. but I am tired and I’ve already explained everything earlier in this thread, so i refer you to any of my previous posts.
.
I disagree with you that the lack of god renders all life meaningless. life is life. life is all there is, you get one shot, that’s it, and that makes it meaningful. there doesnt need to be a god. you’re still misinterpreting what atheists actually believe. and not every atheist necessarily believes the same thing
.
you really are kind of a negative little bugger. “without god everything is pointless.” you sound kind of like a pathetic teenage girl who thinks shes in love.
.
say something new. i’ve been kind of bored.
RAmen
Nowtheworldhasmeaning writes, “…now said powerful being maybe able to punish me for not conforming to his tyrannical will but that does not mean he is God.”
.
I agree.
.
I a world of free will, the God question is moot. Even if there is a god, only man can make that god into God.
.
RAmen.
Nic
The opposite is actually the case the existance of God renders life as meaningless. Now I will try to explain a it may not be easy. You gain a all loving father but loose your free will and I would sacrifice anything for free will.
-
-
OK the human for all is effectively a Mech, by this I don’t mean that he is Machine, but he can be compared to one. I need to explain a little further, we’ll first of all do you know anything about Choas theory? for those that done the important thing to remember is Chaos is not true chaos, it is in fact very predictable if you could know and calculate every eventuallity, also small changes in one variable will result in huge changes in the outcome, so as far as we can calculate it acts chaotically.
-
-
Now your human behaves Choatically, with huge amounts of variables. I would give example but this would take an age and no one would read it. Effectively human behaviour can be predicted if you know all variables but that would be impossible unless of caurse you were Omniscient (all knowing).
-
-
I am leaving a lot out here sorry but I want to go out and meet up with some Nurses tonight! OK so God can predict human behavour, he knows all so can tell you what you do before you do it, otherwise he would not be Omniscient!
-
-
So God creates you and puts together all that makes you up, he then knows what how you will act of eternity, OK then he is like a script write that has full controll over his characters. Nothing wrong with that he is God after all.
-
-
Well how then this takes a way free will, from us, again this is fine, I can’t prove that I am not a puppet of God, but here comes the crunch mate. How the blue rubbery fuck can someone judge you if you have no free will?
Any how Nic as an existentialist I am not totally sure there is a meaning to all this. Who says that life has to have a meaning?
-
-
You are correct in your assumption that if their was a God life would have some meaning, but you can’t reverse this and say that without God life does not have meaning and thus there must be a God. Because to do so means that you would have to assume life has meaning, that is a huge and Unsubstantiated assumption. Existentialism and Nihilism are a philosophical position which state that live has no over riding meaning. The uber rational Nihilism is what most Christians falsely believe Atheist are, when in fact a lot more are existentialist.
-
-
Right I am off out for a while will look in on you guys soon,
Stand before God?
If there is a God (Stop laughing at the back; Christians are people too. Albiet the only people who seem insistant on praying for me) I would sit in his presence. Just to show how much I don’t like him.
Oh and life is pointless. Come on, we would be so much better off if there were no such complications as life. I would in fact commit suicide if I wasn’t so afraid of what Jesus will say. Joke.
Okay, Nic, I’ll bite. Warning to the rest of the community, this is VERY LONG. JUST SKIP TO THE BOTTOM, IT’LL SAVE YOU AN HOUR.
//
1. Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.†(KJV)
//
Nic quoted: “A.J. Hoover wrote, “The choice is simple: one chooses either a self-existent God or a self-existent universe – and the universe is not behaving as if it is self existent… In fact, according to the second law of thermo dynamics, the universe is running down like a clock or, better, cooling off like a giant stove.â€
//
Rebuttal: Bull. Way to misquote the second law, which is actually an axiom by the way (look up the difference). Entropy may at some point approach its maximum (we don’t even know this for certain), but that does not signify the death of the universe, rather the end point of one type of transformation of energy. This does not mean the universe is not running down; but you don’t know if that means it’ll reverse course and rev back up (hmm… awful lot of observable spirals in our corner of the ether…). Anyway, acknowledging the axiom bears out that the universe may very well be behaving in a self-existent way. You quoted Hoover to demonstrate veracity (I assume), but not any logic to support his assertion. I will therefore assume you took him at face value without proof of his assertion, and thus all further suppositions of his quoted by you are also unsupported and invalid. Debunked.
//
2. Nic says, “Virtually all scientists believe that the universe began to exist at a finite point in the past. Virtual particle fluctuation has been used to explain the spontaneous appearance of matter; however, those virtual particles still need a place to fluctuate and thus space itself still needs its origin explained. Further, as B. DeYoung has pointed out, virtual particles, if real, form as matter and antimatter in equal amounts. However, our universe appears to consist almost entirely of ordinary matter. Antimatter is distinctly rare.â€
//
Rebuttal: When Genesis can produce an answer to baryogenesis I might be concerned by B. DeYoung oversimplifying the question of particle-antiparticle disparity. In the meantime, all you’re doing is declaring you have an answer to the origin question that is still debated everywhere, albeit your Answer is still responsible for and lacking in addressing the same open questions. Debunked.
//
3. Teleological argument – Design declares a Designer.
//
Nic says, “Psalm 19:1-3, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork. Day by day they pour forth speech, and night-to-night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words where their voice is not heard. (MKJV)â€
//
Rebuttal: I can’t begin to do it like the esteemed M. Carrier: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ten.html
//
“Creationists tend to want it both ways: they can say that 99% of the scientific experts are wrong, but won’t let us say what is even more reasonable–namely, that it is the other 1% who are wrong. Worse, when creationists do appeal to the few authorities they have chosen to trust, they very often–all too often–misquote them.
//
“With regard to my Odds of Life essay, I do not claim that only I can be right. To the contrary, I acknowledge that nearly half the statistics discussed there are correct in their contexts, and instead note how they are misused by other authors. The abused authors are Salisbury, Quastler, Sagan, Charles-Eugene Guye, Morowitz, Prigogine, Eden, and Küppers–none of whom made any calculations about the improbability of just “any” life arising by chance, yet are routinely quoted as doing so.†From the site above, entitled “Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism.†And they’re awfully Big things.
//
I would hasten to add that teleology does not prove theology. Debunked.
//
4. Cosmic Coincidences & Anthropic Principle - Life requires specifics.
//
Nic says… lots of stuff, it’s all up there if you want to read it.
//
Rebuttal: I must admit I love this one. It gives me warm feelings when you people misquote Einstein… From M. Carrier’s site because I’m too lazy to type it all in by hand: “Einstein said that there is in “the scheme that is manifested in the material universe…neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being” (Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1979, pp. 69-70) and declared that “I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of ‘humility’” (ibid. p. 39). Finally, he declared that “to inquire after the meaning or object of one’s own existence or of creation generally has always seemed to me absurd from an objective point of view,” thus denying that anyone, least of all him, can conclude that a creator exists (The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 1-2). Elsewhere in that same book he writes, “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves.” This soundly refutes the creationist misrepresentation of Einstein as supporting belief in a creator, as weak as such an argument from authority already is.
//
More on anthropism: Over-emphasizing extrinsic finality is often criticized as leading to the anthropic attribution of every event to God’s will, and mere superstition. For instance, “If I hadn’t been at the store today, I wouldn’t have found that $100 on the ground. God must have intended for me to go to the store so I would find that money.” Such abuses were criticized by Francis Bacon (”De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum,” III, iv), Descartes (”Principia Philosophiæ”, I, 28; III, 2, 3; “Meditationes”, III, IV), and Spinoza (Ethica, I, prop. 36 app.). (wikipedia.org)
//
Debunked.
//
5. Anthropological Argument - An absolute moral standard requires God’s existence.
C.S. Lewis wrote, “Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way.†Lewis called this “the Law of Human Nature.â€
Now… please, don’t get me wrong. I love Mr. Lewis as much as the next person. But by what right do you quote his anthropological sociological BELIEFS as LAW? He was never a scholar of either science. He was a literary philosophic turned apologist. And, in fact, he was often wrong in his assertions. As Dan Barker stated in his criticism of Lewis, “Any writer can capture a sympathetic audience by capitalizing on those areas that everyone “knows” to be right.†(Barker 1992) And isn’t that what apologists try to do? Sure makes it easier to argue with people when you act like what you say is an undeniable, unassailable truth. The truth of the matter is that there is NO law of human nature. All humanity is not unisex, uni-size, uni-ethical. There are natural laws which are a heck of a lot broader than what YOU quoted, but they do not make an attempt to transcend culture and ethos into the specific. And obviously, you shouldn’t either. Debunked.
//
In finishing…
//
Nic says, “I am certain that you are living a good (moral) life, but you must refrain from using the theistic conclusions. It is impossible for you to live a meaningful life. We have been over this numerous times. I refer you to a post from my good friend Gill on Oct 4th, 2006 at 2:54 pm. She is talking about morals; however, a world without God renders ALL of life meaningless. Therefore, the value of any particular is impossible to measure. Lastly, I refer you to my original post on Sep 24th, 2006 at 3:28 pm, specifically the section detailing the anthropological argument. Bottom line: Without God everything is pointless. All perceived value is an existential illusion.”
Rebuttal: “Meaningful†is not required to be quantified by an afterlife; it merely requires a purpose. That purpose can be self-driven; I could determine that my life had meaning if I left behind a legacy of philanthropy perpetuating beyond my demise. Further, I could determine that my life has meaning right now because I am impacting my environment. It does not require some Celestial Observer to give it meaning to me, to my children, to my friends or foes. Your argument is so fallacious that it scares me, because you seem like a sincere rational person… and those are the most dangerous of lunatics, because you never see them coming.
Nic said, “Atheists believe that we are merely animals, right?”
No, Nic, you do not get the right to define atheism for yourself. That’s like saying Baptists and Methodists and Lutherans are all the same people, believing in a baptism at birth and no drinking of spirits. Atheists simply do not need a Heavenly Babysitter with a Holy Switch for beating their buttocks with the threat of Eternal Damnation if they don’t play nicely with others.
For emphasis, I re-quote: “We have been over this numerous times. I refer you to a post from my good friend Gill on Oct 4th, 2006 at 2:54 pm. She is talking about morals; however, a world without God renders ALL of life meaningless. Therefore, the value of any particular is impossible to measure.â€
Oh, this tickles me so. Because you have a belief in a statement, no matter how refutable by physical evidence it may be, it becomes an irrefutable truth once you’ve repeated it. That’s not how things work, my good sir… except in religion.
One Eyed Jack said it best (and you ignored it), “In response to your quotes I can only say that you gave me a nice chuckle. You have stripped half a dozen quotes out of context and pretended that they support your point. Honestly, I’m not even sure what your point is anymore.”
//
I am, and I admit… it scares me that people like you exist. You seem so reasonable, and yet your logic is flawed, your agenda is religious intolerance, and your philosophy is extremely narrow. From these humble beginnings have been birthed monstrous works… the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Holocaust, the Ku Klux Klan. I wonder if the marketing genius behind the man Jesus of Nazareth knew what he was wreaking on the world, and whether he retained an embodiment that would allow him to weep for the evil he has wreaked on humanity.
//
No, sir, I am not an atheist. I am not that noble of purpose nor selfless of ambition. Fortunately, God and I understand each other and we’re both okay with it.
//
I’d pray for your soul but that would be an abrogation of your self-will, which is against my religion. God will do with it what God will, and it will be what you have earned with your works here on earth.