God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

[AAF]

SnakeLord: " You're clearly missing the point. While at home bonking the missus over the dining room table, I am not asking anyone for anything, (other than the missus ). If you knock on my door trying to sell me your wares, you must be able to provide suitable evidence for the existence/value of that thing. If it's a hoover, you best show me that it really does suck up even the tiniest little specks of dust if you expect me to buy it. Now, pay attention.. they can believe any crap they want to. IF they intend to try and sell it to me then they must have enough evidence to be able to convince me that the crap they are claiming is true. The onus is not on me to disprove their claims, it's on them to support them. Do you understand? Yes or no"?



Re: You should be happy. The coincidence of the (Bonking + Knocking) could be the sign that you would be the proud father of the next archbishop of Londonderry!

=============================================

SnakeLord: " You seem to be quite confused. None of their evidence is evidential = not evidence = no reason to believe in their crap. IF they want me to believe in their crap then they must be able to provide suitable evidence to convince me of its truth. What in the world makes you think I need to go out of my way to disprove the crap that others claim "?



Re: I'm not; none of theirs is evidential according to my verdict, not their verdict. And of course, you're free to go out of your way or NOT to go out of your way to disprove theirs. But, really, you should try it, because your disproof, if successful, is the only evidence, which is credible & weighty from the standpoint of epistemology & logic & the eternal principle of pure reason.

=============================================

SnakeLord: " I've looked. Where is god defined in such manner? Furthermore, I suppose that's subjective... The way I see it I could never define a god that annihilates every living being on a planet as "nice" or "good". I could never define a god that turns a woman into salt for being curious, sulphur bombs an entire city, allows evil snakes to infiltrate and corrupt mankind, and ends up burning the mass majority of mankind for all eternity as "nice". In saying, the jewish/christian god is clearly not a god. Here's undoubtedly where you'll try to justify those actions. Ergo: subjective ".



Re: Gods are always defined that way everywhere; even the ancient Maya thought their gods were good. As for the Problem of Evil in the world, it's a human problem and not very significant theologically. And that is because when the gods made the big & the grave decision that all living creatures must die, nothing else really does matter. To take extreme care of humans in this life, therefore, would be, on the part of their God, as worthless as brushing the teeth of the leading man on a death row! And so it's left for the residents of hell to know for sure whether God is, really, good or bad.

=============================================

SnakeLord: " The current evidence would suggest that there is not one thing as an objective theist ".



Re: Actually, there is; take Isaac Newton, for example.

=============================================

SnakeLord: " To use an earlier quote you made: "And that is because the value of evidence, for the most part, is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, what appears to be poor evidence, according to your judgement, can be very good according to the best estimate of a rational & objective & equally competent judge like you." If the value of the evidence is in the eye of the beholder, then you could not disprove anything to anyone that doesn't want it to be disproven. They would simply view that data differently to you - and thus when you say "here, this shows your god doesn't exist", they'll say "no it doesn't" and that's the end of that discussion. Tell me, what exactly is a "clear exception" or "obvious contradiction" to someone else's mind, someone equally as competent as you that doesn't view the data in the same way "?



Re: It's the value of supporting or confirming evidence, which is in the eye of the beholder. The value of disproving or disconfirming evidence, by comparison, is universal and in the eye of everybody, so to speak. Let's illustrate that by a simple example.
The Proposition to be examined is [Rome is in Germany].
The supporting Evidence:
1. Rome & Germany are on Planet Earth.
2. Rome & Germany are in the Northern Hemisphere.
3. Rome & Germany are in Europe.
4. Rome & Germany are in the Mainland of Europe.

The disconfirming Evidence:
Rome is south of the Alps & Germany is north of the Alps.
The Conclusion:
The given Proposition is false. Since there is absolutely no way for Rome to be in Germany as long as the Mountains of the Alps separate them.

=============================================

SnakeLord: " Lenny the leprechaun exists. The onus is now, apparently, on you to disprove it. Enjoy".



Re: I believe in Lenny too; let's buy a lottery ticket!

=============================================

SnakeLord: " All due respect but 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'you must disprove my claim that Lenny the leprechaun exists' are two entirely different things ".



Re: The 'innocence' of every legally competent person is taken for granted. And there is no good reason why shouldn't the 'existence' of Lenny be taken for granted as well.

=============================================

SnakeLord: " Eh? You were waffling on about British people wearing wigs, hating the word fuck, and then some other garbage I can't quite remember. As a result I asked what you were smoking. You can imagine me any way you want, if you type nonsense in this forum I will undoubtedly ask you what you've been smoking ".



Re: I wasn't waffling on about them. I just looked at their 'title' & your 'nickname'; then I made the guess that you could be one of them!

 

[SnakeLord]

Re: You should be happy. The coincidence of the (Bonking + Knocking) could be the sign that you would be the proud father of the next archbishop of Londonderry!

Why would an atheist be happy if his child became a bishop? While I would accept his or her choices, (as it's his or her life), I wouldn't consider their choice something to be happy about.

But, really, you should try it, because your disproof, if successful, is the only evidence, which is credible & weighty from the standpoint of epistemology & logic & the eternal principle of pure reason.

So, lets get down to the meat and potatoes.. What exactly disproves their belief in sky beings?

Re: Gods are always defined that way everywhere; even the ancient Maya thought their gods were good.

Everywhere? There were 'bad/evil' Sumerian gods, 'bad/evil' Egyptian gods etc etc. Bad as they were considered, they were still considered gods.

As for the Problem of Evil in the world, it's a human problem and not very significant theologically.

Who was talking about evil in the world?

Re: Actually, there is; take Isaac Newton, for example.

- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion

“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

That is not objective.

But tell me, when you claim him as objective, to what were you referring? I was specifically talking about theist issues - of which I still contend there is no such thing as an objective theist.

It's the value of supporting or confirming evidence, which is in the eye of the beholder. The value of disproving or disconfirming evidence, by comparison, is universal and in the eye of everybody, so to speak. Let's illustrate that by a simple example.
The Proposition to be examined is [Rome is in Germany].
The supporting Evidence:
1. Rome & Germany are on Planet Earth.
2. Rome & Germany are in the Northern Hemisphere.
3. Rome & Germany are in Europe.
4. Rome & Germany are in the Mainland of Europe.

The disconfirming Evidence:
Rome is south of the Alps & Germany is north of the Alps.
The Conclusion:
The given Proposition is false. Since there is absolutely no way for Rome to be in Germany as long as the Mountains of the Alps separate them.

Hmm.. There's a club of Rome in Hamburg, there's a Hotel De Rome in Berlin. Who knows, maybe there's someone with the name Rome that lives in Germany.

That is exactly how the theist works and at the end of the day absolutely regardless to any argument you might be able to make they can fall back on the indisputable; "have you searched the entire universe simultaneously"? Even if you've done that they can fall back on; "He obviously didn't want you to see him" and so on and so forth. However, you seem to think it is easy business, so kindly disprove god.

I lack a belief in gods. I could have a belief in gods but someone who claims that a specific god exists needs to provide evidence of claimed beings existence in order for me to take the claim seriously. The onus is on them.

Re: The 'innocence' of every legally competent person is taken for granted. And there is no good reason why shouldn't the 'existence' of Lenny be taken for granted as well.

Utter hogwash.

 

[AAF]

SnakeLord: " So, let's get down to the meat and potatoes. What exactly disproves their belief in sky beings "?


Re: Survey what they think their 'sky beings' can do; and keep an eye on major doings that don't add up!

=============================================

SnakeLord: " Everywhere? There were 'bad/evil' Sumerian gods, 'bad/evil' Egyptian gods etc etc. Bad as they were considered, they were still considered gods ".


Re: That is merely the classification of ancient deities by contemporary anthropologists. Only the ancient Persians & Scandinavians referred, occasionally, to one of their two chief gods as the 'evil one'; but that is because they had no word for 'Satan'.


=============================================

SnakeLord: " - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. “This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being”. That is not objective. But tell me, when you claim him as objective, to what were you referring? I was specifically talking about theist issues - of which I still contend there is no such thing as an objective theist ".


Re: That was an objective opinion on the part of Isaac Newton; but it was only an opinion, not a proof by any standard. It's, certainly, true that the Universe, poetically, is the most 'beautiful', which for Newton, very likely, meant only the 'most ordered & governed by exact laws'. As for his phrase of 'intelligent & powerful', it is just a harmless anthropomorphic description of that natural order and nothing more. Surely, he thought that the 'ordered natural system' is sufficient evidence for the 'existence' of his God; and that is permissible; since the value of the supporting evidence is always in the eye of the beholder; and Newton, of course, was a 'monotheistic' beholder.

=============================================

SnakeLord: " Hmm.. There's a club of Rome in Hamburg, there's a Hotel De Rome in Berlin. Who knows, maybe there's someone with the name Rome that lives in Germany. That is exactly how the theist works and at the end of the day absolutely regardless to any argument you might be able to make they can fall back on the indisputable; "have you searched the entire universe simultaneously"? Even if you've done that they can fall back on; "He obviously didn't want you to see him" and so on and so forth. However, you seem to think it is easy business, so kindly disprove god. I lack a belief in gods. I could have a belief in gods but someone who claims that a specific god exists needs to provide evidence of claimed beings existence in order for me to take the claim seriously. The onus is on them ".


Re: Redefining 'Rome' that way signals and implies an astounding defeat; there could be no doubt about it. Since this redefined 'Rome' is literally a shadow and an empty shell of its former self; and that is a (defeat + retreat + disappointment). Is it 'easy business’ to disprove god? Absolutely! And the theist's objections of "have you searched the entire universe simultaneously" & "He obviously didn't want you to see him" are non sequitur & hopeless & beside the point. That is because 'God' can be known & defined & investigated only through what He can do; His knowledge is omniscient; His power is infinite; His love is boundless; His justice is everywhere; and so on. It's precisely, Divine attributes like these, which can be dissected & analyzed & their absurdities fleshed and pointed out. In the light of this, theists have no option but to retreat and to assign to their deity finite attributes; and that is a defeat; because a finite deity is no 'God' at all. And so disproving the 'existence' of God is 'easy business', indeed, provided that you can afford the time and keep your theists around to listen to you.

=============================================

SnakeLord: " Utter hogwash ".


Re: It is no 'hogwash'! Taking the 'innocence of the legal person' & the 'existence of God' as granted & assumed & presumed is the sensible thing to do. Since the amount of supporting evidence, no matter how great, is insufficient for establishing the validity of principle-like propositions such as those of theology. And so, why do you want to waste your time & your talent on dead ends and cul-de-sacs, pal? Get down to the 'meat and potatoes' & start looking for disconfirming evidence in earnest!

 

[AAF]

hi ,

i dont get what you mean by "his very concept is logically contradictory therefore he doesent exist"

infinity, was never born, will never die, always was.

peace.

Hi EmptyForceOfChi;


A concept of something is a general notion or idea of that something.
The concept of 'God', therefore, is the general notion of this particular theological entity called 'God'. What the word 'God' means to you? The answer is your concept of 'God'.

What is exactly the general concept of 'God'? In other words, how do people define the notion of 'God'? That is the question.

At some point during the Stone Age, people perceived gods as a 'superman' copy of themselves. Gods were simply scaled-up versions of ordinary people with immense powers and overblown attributes, but still finite and limited nonetheless.

It didn't take long from that humble beginning for the 'Gods' Race (analogous to the Arms Race) to start in earnest. Tribes after tribes moved the upper limit of their gods' power upward to outdo and overpower and dwarf the gods of neighboring tribes.

By the time the Middle Ages arrived, Jews & Christians & Muslims & other monotheists have given up completely the idea of upper limit for limiting the power of 'God' and proudly declared that the power of the 'Almighty' is limitless. However, this idea of theirs was not quite new and original. The credit for originality, here, goes to Aristotle, who assigned to his famous 'Prime Mover of the Cosmos' eternal attributes of infinite extent. As a matter of fact, the clergy of those religions could never have stumbled upon the ideas of eternity & infinity without direct guidance and interaction with ancient Greek philosophy.

Now, the final concept of 'God' is clear. God has a human-like personality with attributes of infinite extent. The fundamental problem with this basic concept of 'God' is that personality and infinity can't go together. To know and to feel and to plan and to do and to act, the intelligent entity, in question, must have a finite and well-defined personality. And hence, personality is incompatible with infinity. Would you imagine the nightmare of having a brain of infinite size? The various parts of such an infinite brain can't communicate with each other; it's as simple as that!

The notion of infinity works very well in the cases of simple essences such as space & time & matter. But it could never be made to work in the case of complicated and highly integrated entities like that of 'God'.

Infinity, also, is incompatible with the notion of action for two main reasons. Actions with infinite extent can't be done. And actions of infinite extent must necessarily act recursively upon themselves; otherwise, they would not be of infinite extent. What a Pandora's box of contradictions! The concept of 'God', as the chief agent for all doings of infinite extent in the Cosmos, just can't fly and can't hold water and can't make any sense at all.

The concept of 'God', therefore, is self-contradictory. And since every entity whose concept is contradictory does not exist, God, quite simply, does not exist either.

Finally, EmptyForceOfChi, you should think very carefully about this statement of yours: "infinity, was never born, will never die, always was". First of all, we don't have just one infinity, but a lot, a lot, and a lot of infinities to take into account. And none of these infinities can be treated as a whole living person, because the notion of infinity does not refer to a person or personality or entity of any kind. Infinity refers only to the extent of attributes and the limitless succession of specific entities. And that is it. So, please, don't follow in the footsteps of other theists by marking infinity off limit to you! You have to punch your way through man-made barriers, just like Genghis Khan did by punching his way through the Great Wall of China, if you really want to get to the bottom of the notion of 'God'. Don't be afraid:
http://www.teleport-city.com/movies/dvdjournal/2006/09/unleash-hordes.html
Punch your way & march forwards; 'peace'….

 

[TruthSeeker]

How do you define "God", AAF?

 

[grover]

AAF,
I think your making the same mistake fundamentalists make - anthropomorphising God. I think everything you've said is true except that God does not have to have human attributes and not all concpetions of God include human attributes.

 

[AAF]

Hi lightgigantic;


Why do good Hindus hate kissing in public?
http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/207482

How can they reconcile that ludicrous taboo with their magnificent Kama Sutra?
http://www.amazon.com/Kama-Sutra-Vatsayana/dp/014019360X

 

[AAF]

How do you define "God", AAF?

:bawl:




Hello TruthSeeker;


How do you define 'God'?
We (you & I) discussed, right here, this very same topic so many times last summer.
Do you remember?

The question, therefore, must be 'what definition of 'God' will, most likely, satisfy TruthSeeker'?

This time, I put forwards the definition of 'God' given in the American Dictionary.
Here it's, God is “a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions”:
http://www.answers.com/topic/god

And also, God is “the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being”: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-god.html

That is not very technical, but I'm certain that the vast majority of people will deem it as a satisfactory & adequate definition. What is about you, TruthSeeker? Are you satisfied now? I certainly hope so.

 

[AAF]

AAF,
I think your making the same mistake fundamentalists make - anthropomorphising God. I think everything you've said is true except that God does not have to have human attributes and not all concpetions of God include human attributes.

Hi grover;


Believe it or not, fundamentalists (in every religion), more often than not, are the only people who dare to tell you the truth as it is and to show you exactly what the religion, in question, really is all about.

No matter how you look at it, the anthropomorphic conception of 'God' is absolutely necessary. What else the religious folks (any religious folks) could perceive their 'God' in any other way, except as their beloved 'Big Daddy' in heavens?

Historically, two definitions of 'God', at least, have come very close to being 'non-anthropomorphic'; i.e. Aristotle's definition of his 'Prime Mover of the Cosmos' as the ‘first cause in the natural chain of causality’, and Spinoza's definition of his God as 'God & Nature are one': http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm
But none of these two definitions of 'God' is credible, theologically or religiously, as far as religion in the real world is concerned.

Therefore, it is not a mistake to have an anthropomorphic conception of 'God'. God to be 'God' must feel & think & know & punish & reward. And these very attributes are necessarily human. There is no way around it.

 

[SnakeLord]

Re: Survey what they think their 'sky beings' can do; and keep an eye on major doings that don't add up!

Such as?

Re: That is merely the classification of ancient deities by contemporary anthropologists

No not really. Anthropologists didn't say Tiamat was a bad god, the text shows that she was.

Re: That was an objective opinion on the part of Isaac Newton

No, it was subjective.

It's, certainly, true that the Universe, poetically, is the most 'beautiful'

Subjective opinion.

Surely, he thought that the 'ordered natural system' is sufficient evidence for the 'existence' of his God; and that is permissible; since the value of the supporting evidence is always in the eye of the beholder; and Newton, of course, was a 'monotheistic' beholder.

See, subjective. The point.

Is it 'easy business’ to disprove god? Absolutely! And the theist's objections of "have you searched the entire universe simultaneously" & "He obviously didn't want you to see him" are non sequitur & hopeless & beside the point.

I think most theists would disagree. Now all you have to is justify that you're the apparently superior authority on the subject.

Re: It is no 'hogwash'! Taking the 'innocence of the legal person' & the 'existence of God' as granted & assumed & presumed is the sensible thing to do.

I disagree.

And so, why do you want to waste your time & your talent on dead ends and cul-de-sacs, pal?

Because... I enjoy the discussions about the subject? Why do you want to waste your time telling others what they should be doing with theirs?

 

[grover]

No matter how you look at it, the anthropomorphic conception of 'God' is absolutely necessary.

No, it isn't. If it was necessary there wouldn't be other coneceptions like Spinoza's.

What else the religious folks (any religious folks) could perceive their 'God' in any other way, except as their beloved 'Big Daddy' in heavens?

They could perceive it like it Spiona'z or Christian Mystics such as St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Teresa of Avila, Rosybroeck, none of who conceived of God as "Big Daddy" in the sky. Furthermore, it must be pointed out, fundamentalists aren't perceiving anything, their religion is based upon belief (i.e., fatih). The Christian Mystics on the other hand are perceving something. To say that all Christians perceive God as an anthropmorphic being is plain and simply incorrect.

Historically, two definitions of 'God', at least, have come very close to being 'non-anthropomorphic'; i.e. Aristotle's definition of his 'Prime Mover of the Cosmos' as the ‘first cause in the natural chain of causality’, and Spinoza's definition of his God as 'God & Nature are one': http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm
But none of these two definitions of 'God' is credible, theologically or religiously, as far as religion in the real world is concerned.

What's that supposed to mean? Why are you saying the one based upon faith(belief based on neither physcial evidence or direct perception) is correct and the one based upon direct perception is incorect? If anything the one based upon faith is most definitely incorrect and the one based upon direct perception may be correct.

Therefore, it is not a mistake to have an anthropomorphic conception of 'God'. God to be 'God' must feel & think & know & punish & reward.

You haven't explained why this must be. Why must he feel, think, know, punish? Why isn't this just humans anthropomorphising soemthing the same way humans once took it for granted that the Earth is at the center of the universe?

And these very attributes are necessarily human. There is no way around it.

Yes, there is a way around it as evidenced by the fact that not all Chritstians conceive of God as being a man in the sky.

 

[AAF]

Hi SnakeLord;



SnakeLord: " Such as "?


Re: Investigate what they believe their 'sky beings' can do. And keep an eye on major doings that don't add up such as the creation of time & the justice of the divine punishment-reward system & the relation between omnipotence and free will & the morality of a moral system based upon self-interest and fear instead of the Socrates Principle of doing what is right because it's right in itself and avoiding what is wrong because it's wrong in itself; and so on.

====================================================

SnakeLord: " No not really. Anthropologists didn't say Tiamat was a bad god, the text shows that she was ".


Re: The holy ancient 'text' of Tiamat couldn't possibly say that She was bad. Of course, it lists some actions supposedly done by Her, which are deemed bad & evil by modern standards. But that is it. Tiamat was, certainly, seen as a good 'Goddess' by Her ancient worshippers; otherwise, She would have been demonized. You know that. You're, in theory, an enlightened 'atheist' and very aware of the fact that the norms of moral judgement concerning (good & evil) change considerably with time.

====================================================

SnakeLord: " No, it was subjective ".


Re: Newton based his opinion about the existence of his 'God' upon the undeniable order of the natural world. And that was objective, because that order was not something subjective and felt by Newton alone and by nobody else. Of course, that natural order can be explained away in so many ways. But still the inference made by Isaac Newton is objective.

====================================================

SnakeLord: " Subjective opinion ".


Re: You have to be very careful about the frequent use of the term 'subjective'; or it might turn around and bite you so badly that you would not dare to utter it again! What is 'subjective'? The 'subjective' is the opposite of 'objective'. The sensations of color & smell & sound, for instance, are subjective. And that is because there is no direct way of knowing what the red color, for example, feels to you. You could sense it exactly as I sense the blue color; and we could never know it unless the color receptors of our eyes are dissected anatomically and compared to each other by an objective and competent doctor. Moreover, if you call Newton's induction of the existence of his 'God' from the order of the natural world 'subjective', then every other inference from the same phenomenon (the order of the natural system) must be 'subjective' as well. Thus, subjectivity can turn around 180 degrees and bite!

====================================================

SnakeLord: " See, subjective. The point ".


Re: Once again, you have to define 'subjective & objective' clearly and strictly and stick to it. In particular, 'subjective', within this context, is not the same as 'arbitrary'. Also, what is 'subjective' exists only in one specific mind or specific type of minds; and it can never be communicated clearly and effectively to other different type of minds. For example, feelings, sensations, pleasure & pain, and most of the so-called 'spiritual experience' are properly classified as 'subjective'. That is on one hand. On the other hand, the Newtonian inference, in question, is objective. Newton thought that the 'ordered natural system' is sufficient evidence for the 'existence' of his God; and that is permissible; since the value of the supporting evidence is always in the eye of the beholder; and Newton, of course, was a 'monotheistic' beholder. And that is not because the value of supporting evidence is intrinsically subjective, but because it's arbitrarily estimated due to the lack of universally agreed-upon criterion or measuring procedure for evaluating the absolute value of such supporting evidence. This is always the case, not only for the type of the fore-mentioned Newtonian induction, but also for the logic of induction in general:
http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html

====================================================

SnakeLord: " I think most theists would disagree. Now all you have to is justify that you're the apparently superior authority on the subject ".


Re: They have the right to disagree; but you have no statistics to back you up and to support your 'apparently superior authority'! Is it 'easy business’ to disprove the existence of 'God'? Yes, it is. And the theist's objections of "have you searched the entire universe simultaneously" & "He obviously didn't want you to see him" are non sequitur & hopeless & beside the point. That is because 'God' can be known & defined & investigated only through what He can do; His 'knowledge is omniscient'; His 'power is infinite'; His 'love is boundless'; His 'justice is everywhere'; and so on. It's precisely, Divine attributes like these, which can be dissected & analyzed & their absurdities fleshed and pointed out. And so, theists have no option but to retreat and to assign to their deity finite attributes; and that is a defeat; because a finite deity is no 'God' at all. And so disproving the 'existence' of God is 'easy business', indeed, provided that you can afford the time and keep your theists around to listen to you. Therefore, logical necessity, here, is the only superior authority.

====================================================

SnakeLord: " I disagree ".


Re: Her Majesty, the Queen, guarantees your right to disagree. But to take the 'innocence of the legal person' & the 'existence of God' for granted is the right thing to do. Since the amount of supporting evidence, no matter how great, is insufficient for establishing the validity of principle-like propositions such as those of theology.

====================================================
SnakeLord: " Because... I enjoy the discussions about the subject? Why do you want to waste your time telling others what they should be doing with theirs "?


Re: That is a good reason. But I'm not telling people what they should do; I'm trying only to show them that it's impossible logically for their 'God' to exist. And unlike you, I don't ask theists for evidence to support their Divine theory. Instead, I ask them to be patient and to listen to me patiently & tenderly & sympathetically, while I'm busy at work pointing out contradictions and pinpointing absurdities & impossibilities and looking for the mother of all atheistic evidence to rule out the existence of their beloved 'Big Daddy in heavens' once and for all!

 

[AAF]

Hello grover;




grover: " No, it isn't. If it was necessary there wouldn't be other conceptions like Spinoza's ".


Re: Actually, the anthropomorphic conception of 'God' is absolutely necessary for religion to function as a living and vital ideology. Furthermore, it's impossible to form any concept of 'God' without using directly or indirectly some very salient human attributes to define Him. Even Spinoza's notion of 'God' has very pronounced human aspects of it, including the teleology & the purposefulness of natural phenomena according to the Spinoza philosophy. Your implicit assumption that for it to be 'necessary', it must be the only possible conception, therefore, is false.

====================================================

grover: " They could perceive it like it Spinoza or Christian Mystics such as St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Teresa of Avila, Rosybroeck, none of who conceived of God as "Big Daddy" in the sky. Furthermore, it must be pointed out, fundamentalists aren't perceiving anything, their religion is based upon belief (i.e., faith). The Christian Mystics on the other hand are perceiving something. To say that all Christians perceive God as an anthropomorphic being is plain and simply incorrect ".


Re: The Spinoza concept of 'God' is very close to being 'non-anthropomorphic'. Accordingly, his 'God' as an object of worship and religion is non-starter & worthless. As for the 'Christian Mystics', their concept of 'God' is, in reality, much more anthropomorphic than that of the 'fundamentalists' and of the conventionalists for that matter.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/3R33S8L87VMQP
At least, the fundamentalists keep their 'God' at some dignifying distance from the world and from themselves. But why do you want to think like an iconoclast and feel disgusted by the anthropomorphic conception of 'God'? Next to being the 'Almighty' Himself, there is nothing more satisfying, for a theist, than to be made by Him in His own image; right?

====================================================

grover: " What's that supposed to mean? Why are you saying the one based upon faith(belief based on neither physical evidence or direct perception) is correct and the one based upon direct perception is incorrect? If anything the one based upon faith is most definitely incorrect and the one based upon direct perception may be correct ".


Re: It means exactly what it says! At least, two definitions of 'God' have come very close to being 'non-anthropomorphic'. The first is Aristotle's definition of his 'Prime Mover of the Cosmos' as the ‘first cause in the natural chain of causality’. And the second is Spinoza's definition of his God as 'God & Nature are one': http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm
However, none of these two definitions of 'God' is serious & credible, theologically or religiously, as far as religion in the real world is concerned. You have to realize that the only plausible justification for people to suppose the existence of 'God' is to have Him worshipped in return for having them rewarded for it. Would you say, then, that nature needs 'God' to take care of it? No way! Nature has the laws of physics to take care of it. Only human beings, really, need 'God' so badly and so much so that they're more than ready to break any law of logic or physics in order to have their beloved 'Big Daddy', right there, in heavens to take care of their needs.

====================================================

grover: " You haven't explained why this must be. Why must he feel, think, know, punish? Why isn't this just humans anthropomorphising something the same way humans once took it for granted that the Earth is at the center of the universe "?


Re: God to be 'God' must feel & think & know & punish & reward, etc. To put it differently, 'God' must be a living person. If 'God' is not a living person, then He can only be a non-living person. And certainly, such a non-living person must be just another non-living, non-thinking, non-feeling, non-loving, very cold, and very 'dumb' thing. And so that non-responding thing is not a god by any stretch of the imagination. It's clear and simple. Why should anyone worship a non-intelligent & non-rewarding thing like that? Suppose, for example, that the 'non-anthropomorphic' god turns out to be the Universal Force of gravity. Would you then worship the gravitational field & make your prayers to it? I guess not; that would be just a waste of time, on the part of potential gravity worshippers.

====================================================

grover: " Yes, there is a way around it as evidenced by the fact that not all Christians conceive of God as being a man in the sky ".


Re: Whether they think of Him as 'man in the sky' or not, all theists, not just Christians, must assign the whole set of their good attributes to their 'God', in order for Him to deserve their worship & obedience & love & respect. http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article1.html

 

[grover]

Hello grover;




grover: " No, it isn't. If it was necessary there wouldn't be other conceptions like Spinoza's ".


Re: Actually, the anthropomorphic conception of 'God' is absolutely necessary for religion to function as a living and vital ideology.

Why?

Furthermore, it's impossible to form any concept of 'God' without using directly or indirectly some very salient human attributes to define Him.

What makes you think the concept is correct?

Even Spinoza's notion of 'God' has very pronounced human aspects of it, including the teleology & the purposefulness of natural phenomena according to the Spinoza philosophy. Your implicit assumption that for it to be 'necessary', it must be the only possible conception, therefore, is false.

Then explain why it is necessary.

====================================================

grover: " They could perceive it like it Spinoza or Christian Mystics such as St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Teresa of Avila, Rosybroeck, none of who conceived of God as "Big Daddy" in the sky. Furthermore, it must be pointed out, fundamentalists aren't perceiving anything, their religion is based upon belief (i.e., faith). The Christian Mystics on the other hand are perceiving something. To say that all Christians perceive God as an anthropomorphic being is plain and simply incorrect ".

Re: The Spinoza concept of 'God' is very close to being 'non-anthropomorphic'. Accordingly, his 'God' as an object of worship and religion is non-starter & worthless. As for the 'Christian Mystics', their concept of 'God' is, in reality, much more anthropomorphic than that of the 'fundamentalists' and of the conventionalists for that matter.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/3R33S8L87VMQP

I fail too see what linking me to a page of books on amazon is supposed to prove.

At least, the fundamentalists keep their 'God' at some dignifying distance from the world and from themselves. But why do you want to think like an iconoclast and feel disgusted by the anthropomorphic conception of 'God'? Next to being the 'Almighty' Himself, there is nothing more satisfying, for a theist, than to be made by Him in His own image; right?

Maybe we shuldn't woory about what is satisfying to a theist. What is satisfying to a theist appears to me often to just be wishful thinking and them attributing their own wants and desires onto the universe.

====================================================

grover: " What's that supposed to mean? Why are you saying the one based upon faith(belief based on neither physical evidence or direct perception) is correct and the one based upon direct perception is incorrect? If anything the one based upon faith is most definitely incorrect and the one based upon direct perception may be correct ".

Re: It means exactly what it says! At least, two definitions of 'God' have come very close to being 'non-anthropomorphic'. The first is Aristotle's definition of his 'Prime Mover of the Cosmos' as the ‘first cause in the natural chain of causality’. And the second is Spinoza's definition of his God as 'God & Nature are one': http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm
However, none of these two definitions of 'God' is serious & credible, theologically or religiously, as far as religion in the real world is concerned.

Why?

You have to realize that the only plausible justification for people to suppose the existence of 'God' is to have Him worshipped in return for having them rewarded for it.

Wrong, Christian mystics claim to have direct perception of god. There is no supposing going on.

Re: God to be 'God' must feel & think & know & punish & reward, etc. To put it differently, 'God' must be a living person. If 'God' is not a living person, then He can only be a non-living person. And certainly, such a non-living person must be just another non-living, non-thinking, non-feeling, non-loving, very cold, and very 'dumb' thing. And so that non-responding thing is not a god by any stretch of the imagination.

WHy are you supposing that anything that wills has to be human like?

It's clear and simple. Why should anyone worship a non-intelligent & non-rewarding thing like that?

People use to worship the sun silly.

Suppose, for example, that the 'non-anthropomorphic' god turns out to be the Universal Force of gravity. Would you then worship the gravitational field & make your prayers to it? I guess not; that would be just a waste of time, on the part of potential gravity worshippers.

Like I said, people used to worship the sun. Or golden calfs for that matter. Nature worship in fertility cults. You have a nice little theory but it doesn't stand up to historical facts.

Re: Whether they think of Him as 'man in the sky' or not, all theists, not just Christians, must assign the whole set of their good attributes to their 'God', in order for Him to deserve their worship & obedience & love & respect. http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article1.html

Why?

 

[AAF]

:bawl:



Hi grover;



grover: " Why "?


Re: It's because the anthropomorphic conception of 'God' is absolutely necessary for religion to function as a living and vital ideology. Otherwise, religion becomes irrelevant & useless & dead. Even ancient deities made of (trees & rivers & planets & stars, etc.) had to have first human-like (personality & mind & spirit & compassion & sense of right and wrong) before getting revered and worshipped by the ancient folks. Do you understand? They had to be human-like and good, before they became objects of worship and religion.

=================================================

grover: " What makes you think the concept is correct "?


Re: It is not a matter of (correct & incorrect), but a matter of sheer impossibility. Since it's absolutely impossible to form any concept of 'God' without using directly or indirectly some very salient human characteristics to define Him, including some clear sense of (plan & purpose).

=================================================

grover: " Then explain why it is necessary ".


Re: The sheer logical & practical impossibility is the explanation.

=================================================

grover: " I fail too see what linking me to a page of books on amazon is supposed to prove ".


Re: Click again:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/3R33S8L87VMQP
It contains some contrary facts to your previous contention that the conception of 'God' by Christian Mystics is non-anthropomorphic.

=================================================

grover: " Maybe we shouldn't worry about what is satisfying to a theist. What is satisfying to a theist appears to me often to just be wishful thinking and then attributing their own wants and desires onto the universe ".


Re: We should worry very much about it. And that is because the Divine theory of the theist is the subject matter here. We don't want to misunderstand the theist, do we?

=================================================

grover: " Why "?


Re: It's because, within this context, the theistic conceptions of 'God' are extremely important. We want to capture the real thing. We don't want to make 'straw-man' arguments & beside-the-point refutations; do we?

=================================================

grover: " Wrong, Christian mystics claim to have direct perception of god. There is no supposing going on ".


Re: It's quite the opposite. There is a lot of 'supposing going on' in their claim of (perceiving & meeting) their 'God ' in person, including the outrageous supposition of being (exceptionally gifted & chosen & favored & taken on a tour) by the 'Almighty' Himself! . And that is a very personal and anthropomorphic notion of 'God'. It just can't be otherwise.

=================================================

grover: " Why are you supposing that anything that wills has to be human like "?


Re: That is obvious. Will is one of the most essential human attributes. Make that will free; and the human-like personality, in question, becomes flamboyant & breathtaking.

=================================================

grover: " People used to worship the sun silly ".


Re: Look at it closely, 'silly'! The sun that they used to worship was equipped with (eyes + soul + mind + feeling + free will). And that was a very lively and lovely and anthropomorphic conception of the sun; wasn't it?

=================================================

grover: " Like I said, people used to worship the sun. Or golden calves for that matter. Nature worship in fertility cults. You have a nice little theory but it doesn't stand up to historical facts ".


Re: History is, certainly, on my side! Each and every one of those things (you mentioned) had been given (eyes & soul & mind & feelings & free will), before they were put to use in religion as anthropomorphic deities.

=================================================

grover: " Why "?


Re: 'Why, why, why'; what is the matter with you? Theists, through the ages, have assigned the whole set of their good attributes to their 'God', in order for Him to deserve their worship & obedience & love & respect. It's really clear and simple.
http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article1.html

 

[SnakeLord]

Investigate what they believe their 'sky beings' can do. And keep an eye on major doings that don't add up such as the creation of time & the justice of the divine punishment-reward system & the relation between omnipotence and free will & the morality of a moral system based upon self-interest and fear instead of the Socrates Principle of doing what is right because it's right in itself and avoiding what is wrong because it's wrong in itself; and so on.

Been done for centuries - along with many other debate/discussion topics. I generally get round to all of them. None of this of course is "disproving" anything. In your mind certainly, in the eyes of plain logic certainly.. But it's not you you're trying to debate against.. is it?

The holy ancient 'text' of Tiamat couldn't possibly say that She was bad. Of course, it lists some actions supposedly done by Her, which are deemed bad & evil by modern standards.

Deemed bad and evil by ancient standards aswell clearly given the texts.

Tiamat was, certainly, seen as a good 'Goddess' by Her ancient worshippers; otherwise, She would have been demonized. You know that.

But she wasn't. Marduk certainly - Tiamat was considered the serpent/dragon that god her dues in the end.

Re: Newton based his opinion about the existence of his 'God' upon the undeniable order of the natural world.

Undeniable to who? However, his opinion concerning god is what is subjective - not objective. Take into account that I used a definition earlier: 'not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased'

Being of the opinion that a 'god' did it clearly smells of personal feeling, interpretation and bias.

Re: You have to be very careful about the frequent use of the term 'subjective'; or it might turn around and bite you so badly that you would not dare to utter it again!

If you say so.

Re: Once again, you have to define 'subjective & objective' clearly and strictly and stick to it.

I did. Guess you didn't read it.

but you have no statistics to back you up and to support your 'apparently superior authority'!

It's debateable. You claim that it is "easy to disprove god". As it's so easy surely the statistics concerning worldwide religiosity would be a lot lower? Or were you trying to say that you can disprove god in your own mind?

And the theist's objections of "have you searched the entire universe simultaneously" & "He obviously didn't want you to see him" are non sequitur & hopeless & beside the point.

To who? Your statements all seem to indicate that you're the boss, you're the top authority on the subject.

But I'm not telling people what they should do; I'm trying only to show them that it's impossible logically for their 'God' to exist.

By doing so you actually limit the gods to what you perceive them to be. If someone were to state that their god could do the logically impossible - because it's god, what are you left with?

And unlike you, I don't ask theists for evidence to support their Divine theory.

That's good for you.. I personally do. The point?

 

[grover]

Hi grover;



grover: " Why "?


Re: It's because the anthropomorphic conception of 'God' is absolutely necessary for religion to function as a living and vital ideology. Otherwise, religion becomes irrelevant & useless & dead. Even ancient deities made of (trees & rivers & planets & stars, etc.) had to have first human-like (personality & mind & spirit & compassion & sense of right and wrong) before getting revered and worshipped by the ancient folks. Do you understand? They had to be human-like and good, before they became objects of worship and religion.

Your not presenting any actual evidence to back up your view. You just keep repeating the phrase that it's necessary as if it is self-evidently true.

=================================================

grover: " What makes you think the concept is correct "?


Re: It is not a matter of (correct & incorrect), but a matter of sheer impossibility. Since it's absolutely impossible to form any concept of 'God' without using directly or indirectly some very salient human characteristics to define Him, including some clear sense of (plan & purpose).

No, you're wrong. If it was impossible Spinoza couldn't have done it.

=================================================

grover: " Then explain why it is necessary ".


Re: The sheer logical & practical impossibility is the explanation.

You keep saying its impossible but not explaining why.

=================================================

grover: " I fail too see what linking me to a page of books on amazon is supposed to prove ".


Re: Click again:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/3R33S8L87VMQP
It contains some contrary facts to your previous contention that the conception of 'God' by Christian Mystics is non-anthropomorphic.

I saw nothing on that page that refutes my claim about Christian Mystics.

=================================================

grover: " Maybe we shouldn't worry about what is satisfying to a theist. What is satisfying to a theist appears to me often to just be wishful thinking and then attributing their own wants and desires onto the universe ".


Re: We should worry very much about it. And that is because the Divine theory of the theist is the subject matter here. We don't want to misunderstand the theist, do we?

Right. Which is why we should take things that are satisfying to them sceptically.

=================================================

grover: " Why "?


Re: It's because, within this context, the theistic conceptions of 'God' are extremely important. We want to capture the real thing. We don't want to make 'straw-man' arguments & beside-the-point refutations; do we?

So? You still haven't answered why? You just keep repeating the same empty phrase about necessity over and over again. Its an "argument" devoid of any real content. Its no different than a theist saying that God is necessary and refusing to explain why.

=================================================

grover: " Wrong, Christian mystics claim to have direct perception of god. There is no supposing going on ".


Re: It's quite the opposite. There is a lot of 'supposing going on' in their claim of (perceiving & meeting) their 'God ' in person, including the outrageous supposition of being (exceptionally gifted & chosen & favored & taken on a tour) by the 'Almighty' Himself! . And that is a very personal and anthropomorphic notion of 'God'. It just can't be otherwise.

How so?

=================================================

grover: " Why are you supposing that anything that wills has to be human like "?


Re: That is obvious. Will is one of the most essential human attributes. Make that will free; and the human-like personality, in question, becomes flamboyant & breathtaking.

Just because humans have will doesn't mean that all things that will are human.

=================================================

grover: " People used to worship the sun silly ".


Re: Look at it closely, 'silly'! The sun that they used to worship was equipped with (eyes + soul + mind + feeling + free will). And that was a very lively and lovely and anthropomorphic conception of the sun; wasn't it?

First of all provide some evidence they actually anthropomorphised the sun. Second of all, even if they did, that just means humans anthropomorphize things.

=================================================

grover: " Like I said, people used to worship the sun. Or golden calves for that matter. Nature worship in fertility cults. You have a nice little theory but it doesn't stand up to historical facts ".


Re: History is, certainly, on my side! Each and every one of those things (you mentioned) had been given (eyes & soul & mind & feelings & free will), before they were put to use in religion as anthropomorphic deities.

No, fertility cults didnt anthropomorhize nature, Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll hav to see some actual textual evidence instead of you just repeating your empty phrase over and over.

=================================================

grover: " Why "?


Re: 'Why, why, why'; what is the matter with you? Theists, through the ages, have assigned the whole set of their good attributes to their 'God', in order for Him to deserve their worship & obedience & love & respect. It's really clear and simple.
http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article1.html

You make it sound like this is all somehow self-evident. I don't see it at all.

 

[AAF]

Hello SnakeLord;



SnakeLord: " Been done for centuries - along with many other debate/discussion topics. I generally get round to all of them. None of this of course is "disproving" anything. In your mind certainly, in the eyes of plain logic certainly.. But it's not you you're trying to debate against.. is it "?


Re: It may well be the case that you're setting the bar for what can be realistically expected from this kind of debates and discussions too high. When you set out to disprove the central ideas of some pros (e.g. the theists), you can't expect them to surrender under the impact of your powerful disproof. That is unrealistic. Their emotional attachment to their basic dogmas is just unshakable and very strong. Even in science, rarely (if ever) you can get unconditional surrender with regard to fundamental ideas and theories; let alone religion. What are the realistic expectations in this case? If your arguments are effective & strong, you will, certainly, rout your pros and put then in a state of endless retreat. Time after time, the pros will be forced to redefine their basic terminology, and to modify their initial ideas. Their beliefs will become increasingly foggy; their wording will be vague and less informing; their dogmas will be dissolved and vaporized bit by bit; and their strong conviction of having the truth on their side will go with the wind. Just take a look at what happened to the Flat-Earthers, for example. They are literally walking shadows of their former self. And since every debate of this sort consists of (pros + cons + audience), your theists will, eventually, take refuge in the absurd and lose; and you will win over most of the audience;. People tend to bet on the strong horse, right?

==============================================

SnakeLord: " Deemed bad and evil by ancient standards as well clearly given the texts ".


Re: By the standards of Her worshippers, Tiamat was good. She might have been demonized by the followers of other gods, but certainly not by Her own ancient worshippers.

==============================================

SnakeLord: " But she wasn't. Marduk certainly - Tiamat was considered the serpent/dragon that god her dues in the end ".


Re: Tiamat was called by Her ancient worshippers the 'Mother of all life'. The 'Serpent' was Her symbol; and that was an honor. Remember that snakes, in ancient times, were considered exceptionally good as the omen of immortality and eternal life:
http://www.khandro.net/animal_serpent_good.htm
At times, Tiamat was jealous; but jealousy as well was a sign of deep love and deemed good in Antiquity:
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/144526

==============================================

SnakeLord: " Undeniable to who? However, his opinion concerning god is what is subjective - not objective. Take into account that I used a definition earlier: 'not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased'. Being of the opinion that a 'god' did it clearly smells of personal feeling, interpretation and bias ".


Re: The order of the natural world, especially the clock-like order of the Solar System, cannot be denied by anybody. By simple induction from everyday life, Newton concluded that every highly ordered system implies necessarily an intelligent agent and the 'clockwork' Cosmos implies the existence of 'God'. And this conclusion of his is objective, but not logically necessary. And that is because there can be no logical necessity in induction. And because it's always possible for the same result (e.g. the ordered Cosmos) to be achieved by an infinite number of potential causes besides the Newtonian 'intelligent agent'. And so the main problem with this viewpoint of Newton is not 'subjectivity', but the failure to explain the phenomenon at hand. By definition, his 'intelligent agent' must be many orders of magnitude more 'ordered & organized' than the Solar System. Who is the intelligent agent for Newton's supposedly 'intelligent agent'? It's either an infinite series of (higher & higher) 'intelligent agents', or there is no intelligent agent behind the order of the Solar System to begin with. Either way, his 'Divine hypothesis' would not work.

==============================================

SnakeLord: " If you say so ".


Re: 'If I say so' or I don't say so, the term 'subjective' turns around and bites you! Recall your early definition of 'objective': "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased'. Being of the opinion that a 'god' did it clearly smells of personal feeling, interpretation and bias". First of all, you have no access to the 'personal feelings' of others. And you can only guess what drives them psychologically to form some opinion. 'Prejudice' too, most of the time, is a mere hostile guess. The same applies to 'bias'. Since there is no objective way of how the 'biased & unbiased' should look like. Your above phrases of 'personal feelings & prejudice & bias & unbiased & biased' are outright subjective. And your definition of 'objective & subjective' is non-starter and false. Subjectivity, therefore, has bitten you; correct?

==============================================

SnakeLord: " I did. Guess you didn't read it ".


Re: I did read your definition of the term 'subjective'. The problem is that your definition of 'subjective' is itself subjective. You really should take a second look at it! I agree that (prejudice, bias, personal feelings, etc.) are excellent ammunitions to use in any psychological warfare. But that is it. However, they can be made effective for searching for the truth, if you turn them around in the form of questions to yourself. Do I have any 'prejudice'? Am I 'biased'? Do my 'personal feelings' affect my judgment? In this case, your method is superb; because you have direct access to your own 'personal feelings'; and hence you can determine their influence on your opinion directly and correctly. In fact, questions like these led Francis Bacon to write his 'New Organon' & to discover and formulate the modern Scientific Method.
http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm

==============================================

SnakeLord: " It's debatable. You claim that it is "easy to disprove god". As it's so easy surely the statistics concerning worldwide religiosity would be a lot lower? Or were you trying to say that you can disprove god in your own mind "?


Re: The existence of the theistic God' can be ruled out easily and beyond a shred of a doubt through the use of the standard methods of formal logic. His very concept is logically inconsistent and full of all sorts of contradictions & absurdities. And since it's absolutely impossible for an entity, whose concept is contradictory to exist in any shape or form, the case for atheism is a slam-dunk; and 'God', simply, can never exist.

==============================================

SnakeLord: " To who? Your statements all seem to indicate that you're the boss, you're the top authority on the subject ".


Re: I could be the 'boss'; but you would not get any 'pay cheque' from me! The theist's objections of "have you searched the entire universe simultaneously" & "He obviously didn't want you to see him" are non sequitur & hopeless & beside the point. That is because 'God' can be known & defined & investigated only through what He can do; His 'knowledge is omniscient'; His 'power is infinite'; His 'love is boundless'; His 'justice is everywhere'; and so on. It's precisely, Divine attributes like these, which can be dissected & analyzed & their absurdities fleshed and pointed out. And so, theists have no option but to retreat and to assign to their deity finite attributes; and that is a defeat; because a finite deity is no 'God' at all. And so disproving the 'existence' of God is 'easy business', indeed, provided that you can afford the time and keep your theists around to listen to you. Therefore, logical necessity is the only top authority regarding this subject.

==============================================

SnakeLord: " By doing so you actually limit the gods to what you perceive them to be. If someone were to state that their god could do the logically impossible - because it's god, what are you left with "?


Re: I don't limit the gods to what I perceive them to be. I take gods as their official worshippers define them & perceive them to be. And if some theists believe their 'god' can do the impossible, then everything goes. And if everything goes, then those same theists have to agree that sooner or later their 'god' will decide to commit suicide and leave them godless! In the absence of logic, they can't rule out the divine self-destruction; can they? And that is good!

==============================================

SnakeLord: " That's good for you.. I personally do. The point "?


Re: And it's good for the theists and their 'God' as well; don't you think so? Look, 'SnakeLord'; logical consistency is a must. And if some folks choose the impossible as a basis for their belief, then their belief, by default, is out of action; you don't even need to argue against their belief; since their belief, simply, was born dead; and they know it. It's that simple.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Holy jesus mother of mary god commits incest pedophilia BATMAN this thread is already 52 pages! How can you continue ON and ON so LONG?!

 

[AAF]

Holy jesus mother of mary god commits incest pedophilia BATMAN this thread is already 52 pages! How can you continue ON and ON so LONG?!

'Jeremiah'; is this you?
http://www.blogger.com/profile/4621533

Be nice to the 'Blessed Virgin Mary'; OR your 'girlfriend' might dump you!
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintbvm.htm

Check out what happened to 'His Majesty' OEDIPUS:
http://www.theatrehistory.com/ancient/oedipus001.html

That is too much; I agree; but this is the 'record' holder around here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2607


:bawl: