Posts by JWoods

120

Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)

by Psychotic Parrot in

jw
friends

god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.

as for the arguments themselves:.

the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.

JWoods

Atheism & agnosticism are two very different things, BUT they are not mutually exclusive, do you understand what i mean by that?

They are mutually exclusive in the simple idea that you either claim to know there is no God, or, you claim to not know if there is a God.

"activist-evangalistic atheism" does indeed sound very ugly, but thankfully, it does not exist, so we can sleep safely in our beds tonight.

What? You simply cannot be saying that people like Madaline Murray O'Hair or the anti-pledge of allegiance atheist father in San Francisco are NOT being both activists and evangalists for their cause??? Atheism is as much a religious belief system to them as Jesus is to the Southern Baptists - and they are just as public and in your face about their belief as Billy Graham or the Witnesses ever were.

120

Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)

by Psychotic Parrot in

jw
friends

god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.

as for the arguments themselves:.

the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.

JWoods

Sorry, but after five pages I still have no clear idea what the logic, purpose, or intent of this thread was.

However, what I think I have seen here is an outward anger from the original poster toward people who choose to believe in God.

I have always thought that this "activist-evangalistic atheism" is a rather ugly thing. If there is no God, and an atheist is so sure of it, then what is the point of trying to enforce this belief system on others? Should not a true atheist just be neutral in religious matters, provided that the religion is doing no harm to others and teaches a generally beneficial code?

I am a non-religious agnostic, but I have always had the feeling that to try to force that philosophy onto religionists is to cheapen its message.

BTW - atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing.

13

Art Linkletter dies at 97

by straightshooter in

sad to hear that art linkletter passed away.

i remember his shows, they were very entertaining.

i especially enjoyed the "kids say the darndest things.".

JWoods

I had no idea he was still living. He was a good guy in my books.

One more of the "generation of 1914" gone - if you can count someone who was only one year old in 1914.

120

Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)

by Psychotic Parrot in

jw
friends

god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.

as for the arguments themselves:.

the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.

JWoods

I'm not surprised, if all you can say is that you don't understand what someone is saying. I would be more compassionate if you genuinely didn't understand, but the reality is that you were just trying to be spiteful, so i returned the favour.

I am very glad that you understand what I do (or do not) understand so well. That insight is to me more valuable than your compassion. Sometimes I do not understand myself.

120

Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)

by Psychotic Parrot in

jw
friends

god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.

as for the arguments themselves:.

the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.

JWoods

You're dumb then aren't you.

I have been told that here before.

120

Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)

by Psychotic Parrot in

jw
friends

god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.

as for the arguments themselves:.

the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.

JWoods

Parrot, I really must say that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

73

What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

john loftus:.

what must be the case if christianity is true?.

that the highest created being, known as satan or the devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent god, and expected to win--which makes satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.. .

JWoods

I know the conventional arguments for the sacrifice as you gave them, PSacremento.

But they still do not explain to me the "legalistic" necessity of God having to kill all mankind because of Adam & Eden in the first place, if he really wanted to save them so badly.

73

What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

john loftus:.

what must be the case if christianity is true?.

that the highest created being, known as satan or the devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent god, and expected to win--which makes satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.. .

JWoods

Can't know these things, but I do trust that the story of Job shows us that there are things happening beyond our scope of knowledge.

You know, Tammy, that Job story is just as disturbing to me as the Jesus sacrificial legend (as disturbing in the sense of what it reveals about God) - it shows God perfectly willing to let Satan torture Job for years, destroy his belongings, ruin his health, kill his kids, etc...

And for what?

Just, seemingly, to settle a nice little gentlemens BET on whether Job would curse God for letting it happen.

Very disturbing to me, morally.

73

What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

john loftus:.

what must be the case if christianity is true?.

that the highest created being, known as satan or the devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent god, and expected to win--which makes satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.. .

JWoods

I still find the notion of human sacrifice (Jesus impalement for mankind) the most disturbing part of the case.

Yes, I know that brave people have died for others in the past...what I find disturbing is the notion that God would REQUIRE IT.

9

SAVE THE WHALES & Clean up the OCEANS - your help requested

by AWAKE&WATCHING in

jw
friends

friends!!!!

i know you are all busy.

please make your internet time something you can feel good about.

JWoods

In washington state their are some native tribes that claim that right too.

And, I suppose, in Alaska...and I guess I can see that the Inuits (if they are really living in the native state) might have such a claim. I have less a problem with those few in primitive watercraft than I do with the huge commercial vessels out in the open sea, collecting them for sale to rich businessmen.

I think the dept. of the interior has set a quota system for the Native Americans which ensures that the species is protected - much like other U.S. hunting laws and permits.