Subject: Re: no evidence of God. In article <16407@mimsy.UUCP>, mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley
From: jcmmaint@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Dene Bebbington)
Subject: Re: no evidence of God.
Organization: AT&T Network Systems UK Ltd
In article <16407@mimsy.UUCP>, mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Dene Bebbington writes:
*>>> Uh, Dene... What are you going to do when God doesn't provide this proof?
>>Tell him he's a bloody dictator then bugger off to hell I guess. Bit of a
>>silly question on your part, you are assuming just what I don't, that there
>>is a God.
>Your kind, I'm afraid, throws this word "assume" around far too much. By
>your own usage, I should complain that your are assuming that I am assuming.
The assumption I referred to was there on the line marked with a '*'.
>>What reason is there for the world not being how I see it - ie. with no God?
>Seems like we have a problem with prejudice here. You would be unlikely, I
>think, to hold any account of anything to such a high standard of evidence.
We do have a problem with prejudice here, namely YOURS. I would be inclined
to accept the concept of God given good evidence, but as I have said before
I don't accept the bible as enough. Not a great demand I would have thought.
>You seem to have arranged things so that no evidence wil convince. I rather
Nonsense, where is this evidence? My only stipulation is that I need more
than just the bible, or do you think this is asking too much?
>get the impression that your atheism is essentially the result of your
>holding yourself to be the highest thing in the universe. This rather
I don't hold myself to be the highest thing in the universe, what made you
jump to this silly conclusion? Prejudice perhaps?
>guarantees that any God who doesn't meet your approval, who invalidates your
>assessment of things, is going to be declared non-existent. But a real God
>is guaranteed to do just that.
No I don't like the idea of a christian God, but if I had good evidence to
confirm his existence then I would have to accept it, even though I would not
worship and be faithful to him, reasons for which I have given before.
>>And its my prerogative to get pissed off with an inconsistent and stupid God
>>who wants to judge us without providing good enough evidence of his existence.
>>The bible may be good enough for you, but not for me.
>In the first place, if God says that it is not your prerogative, then it is
>not. In the second place, do not confuse me with bibliolatrous bible
IT IS my prerogative because I have freewill and I have said it.
>thumpers. Without something of grace, something of God, the bible is just
>historical paper. It seems to me that it isn't merely that you don't hear
>GOd; it seems to me that you *won't* hear God.
Oh very good, because I don't accept God, I won't. Please stop talking
absolute rubbish, I have already said why I don't 'hear' God.
>>> If there is one thing that I am sure of, it is that God only very rarely
>>> submits to demands to appear. More often he refuses, perhaps to show his
>>> superior position.
>>Very superior!!! More like plain stupid, as I keep saying time and time again,
>>if he is so concerned for us to follow him why be so coy about showing
>Well, part of the answer clearly is because he wants to make it possible
>that people *choose* to follow him. Why he wants this-- good question.
Can't want it very much because if he did he would provide us atheists
with incontrevertible evidence and would remove the need for all this debate.
Anyway, if he did appear (as it were) then people could still choose to
follow him, presumably based on whether they thought he was worth following.
>>> I would suggest that a more appropriate word would be "conveniently".
>>No! LUCKILY. I would hate to believe in a God of the bible, I'm not
>>particularly into being a fawning buffoon and following a heavenly dictator
>>who is so bloody incoherent and inconsistent to the point of ridiculousness.
>SINCE you would hate to believe so, your decision is obviously not one of
>chance. It is one which is convenient to what you obviously hold dear: your
>own sense of wisdom. Plenty of people have looked to this same God and seen
My disbelief is based on not having reason to believe, my finding the
christian conception of God appalling is secondary.
What is all this stuff about me holding dear my own sense of wisdom? I accept
my limitations, and certainly don't consider myself to be wiser than everyone
else. I am just more sceptical than some people.
>past what you see as inconsistent and rediculous, and frankly, I think their
>reasoning makes a lot more sense than your position does. Indeed, to me you
And frankly I don't think their 'reasoning' makes more sense, in fact I wouldn't
call faith in God based on the bible reasoning, it is just faith.
>come across as a bit of a buffoon yourself; you obviously are not in a
>position to make the judgements you so blythely make.
Oh, I am a buffoon because I like good reasons before I accept things, silly
me, I always thought people who accepted things based on little more than
assertions in a book full of inconsistencies were the real buffoons.
Obviously I must now go through life accepting things blandly without
evidence because people assert that it is true, otherwise I must obviously
(according to C.Wingate at least) be a buffoon.
Makes no sense to me I'm afraid.
: Dene Bebbington. "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but :
: AT&T Network Systems UK Ltd. certainty is absurd" - Voltaire. :
: att!ihlpb!jcmmaint (UUCP) :
: firstname.lastname@example.org (internet) :
: DISCLAIMER: The views given here belong only to me and anyone who :
: wishes to share them. :
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank