Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Good idea or what?
Good idea 33%
Or what? 22%
If you had half a brain you'd be dangerous 44%

Votes: 9

 April madness

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 17, 2002
 Comments:
I've got an idea which could revolutionise the world!
diaries

More diaries by Ben Reid
Harry Potter - What Does God Have to Say?
Thought you might like this
For the rest of April, whenever an appropriate issue comes up, all atheists must argue the theists position and vice versa. Yes, that means the bad guys, Slave', Elenchos, Spudarama, Vitriol Scientist et al must argue against the good guys nathan, tkatchev, T. Gibbons, myself et al.

Sooooooo, let's get the ball rolling eh? I can tell you are all excited. Here's my arguments to prove once and for all that God does not exist. No way, auh ah, thanks for playing.

  • Ummm, like, who's to say Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist as well, dude? Well? Well?
  • If God is so good why does he allow evil stuff to go on and baddies like Lenix Haxors to exist?
  • OK, what about Santa Claus huh!? I suppose you still believe in that myth too?
  • You claim that God has foreknowledge and yet we have free will? WTH? Non Sequitur my friend. Non se-qui-tur.
  • I'm not claiming anything at all (well apart from the fact I exist, my thoughts are not simply a part of a mechianistic universe, that logic is an objective reality, that my beliefs are not simply the result of chemical reactions in my brain, that we can call something epistemelogically or ethically wrong without believing in a universal standard, that you can know something without knowing everything ...), it is YOU who are making this radical outlandish "God exists" statements. The burden of proof is on YOU my friend. I simply LABIG dude!

That's all for now. Thank you and good day. May the best side win.


Correction/addition (none / 0) (#1)
by Ben Reid on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 09:29:23 PM PST
Should probably have said Christian instead of theist, but, I'll let you take your pick. I'm a good bloke like that.

The winning prize is a grease ball Big Mac at the restaurant of your choice.


 
I think I just heard a (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:37:08 PM PST
chocolate cock crow three times.


oh dear (none / 0) (#15)
by PotatoError on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 04:53:27 PM PST
stories seem to be leaking into other ones
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Oh no! The chocolate cock is leaking! [n/t] (none / 0) (#39)
by because it isnt on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 03:25:31 AM PST

adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
I refuse to argue with a mere Preterite [n/t] (none / 0) (#3)
by jvance on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 11:07:20 PM PST

--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Your taunts just make me stronger (n/t) (none / 0) (#4)
by Ben Reid on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 11:09:52 PM PST



 
Ow! Ouch! (none / 0) (#5)
by elenchos on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:44:23 AM PST
Ugh!

You win. Your brilliance has beaten me soundly, sir. There is no God. Congradulations.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Just typical (none / 0) (#6)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 03:25:39 AM PST
Of you Christians. You go running with your tail between your legs whenever given solid evidence. What's wrong? I'm sorry, did I, like a surgeon, disect and refute the very belief system you base your whole existence around. You mindless sheep. You propaganda following tree loving hippy.

It's just as I suspected, Christianity for you is nothing but a crutch for a weak mind. A weak mind! Hahahaha! Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.

Why can't you simply cannot face the fact that this life is MEANINGLESS? Meaningless, you silly boy. You are NOTHING. Nothing but a blob of protein wired by nerves, living your life in a tiny part this vast universe waiting for your little glitch of time to end so that mother nature may consume you and spew you out, back to where you came from.

On a slightly unrelated note, do you know where I can get a decent juicer these days. I mean, is that too much to ask? All I want is to make some fresh home made juice dammit, I don't want flashing lights, I don't some salesman trying to sell my some industrial sized DC motor relabelled as a juicing machine. I just want juice. Plain and simple, unadultered juice. Ideas and suggestions are greatly appreciated, thanx.


As a Christian... (none / 0) (#10)
by First Incision on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 06:42:55 AM PST
Correct. I AM nothing but a blob of protein wired by nerves, living my life in a tiny part of this vast universe waiting for my little glitch of time to end so that mother nature may consume me and spew me out, back to where I came from.

In standard form, you hold these facts up as some kind of evidence that my life is meaningless. Thankfully, I find my life's meaning not in the frailty of my body, but through the Lord.

"I am nothing but dust and ashes."
-Abraham
Genesis 18:27
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

It's all about humility. (none / 0) (#11)
by hauntedattics on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 07:39:46 AM PST
And boy, is that ever difficult. I must break that one about 50 times a day.



A song for ya' (none / 0) (#24)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 07:39:07 PM PST
(Everybody sing it now)

OH LORD ITS HARD TO BE HUMBLE WHEN YOUR PERFECT IN EV-ER-Y WAY

CAN'T WAIT TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR CAUSE I GET BETTER LOOKING EACH DAY

TO KNOW ME IS TO LOVE ME I MUST BE A HECK OF A (WO)MAN

OH LORD ITS HARD TO BE HUMBLE BUT I'M DOING THE BEST THAT I CAN


Victory song (none / 0) (#26)
by First Incision on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 08:17:16 PM PST
When I was in the marching band, we sang that song every time our team won. Except the last line went

OH LORD ITS HARD TO BE HUMBLE IN THE SAMFORD BULLDOG BAND! GO DOGS!
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Oops. (none / 0) (#44)
by hauntedattics on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 07:35:14 AM PST
I always thought that song was tongue-in-cheek. Silly me.



 
The dark Lord demands your loyalty. (none / 0) (#14)
by Uncanny Vortex on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:51:49 PM PST
I find my life's meaning not in the frailty of my body, but through the Lord.

The Lord, you say? I assume you're referring to Beelzebub, The Lord of the Flies.

I also find my meaning in life through Beelzebub. I'm so glad to find someone else here who worships Old Scratch. He has benefitted our lives greatly. He alone can bring meaning to the down-and-out, and only through ritual sacrifice can we go Clear and obtain His cruel favor.

"Suck Satan's cock!" (Bill Hicks)

I say Amen to that, Bill.

-- Uncanny Vortex




 
Hmm (none / 0) (#18)
by PotatoError on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:04:14 PM PST
Why do Christians take God on his word? Surely all you know is that God exists - not how he thinks or his plans. You can't know if he's a benevolant or hostile being at all. You can't take the Bible as truth because you don't know if God was lying when he "wrote" it. Lying for the purpose of manipulation or lying for some other reason who knows. I don't and Im not pretending to. But plenty of Christians on this planet never even think about it. Strange.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

why do (none / 0) (#19)
by nathan on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:14:46 PM PST
We even take our senses as sources of information? We could all be brains in jars, and how would we know?!?11?!?!11!?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Oh come on (none / 0) (#20)
by PotatoError on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 06:53:05 PM PST
You can't use that arguement! That't the athiest argument against believing in God. Its NOTT FAIRR!!!!!

You know, I think we're all playing Better Than Life.

How does the brain in the jar know it isnt actually a brain in a box? And how does the brain in the box know it isnt actually a human's imagination? Ah Ha!
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

And how... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by hauntedattics on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 07:14:55 PM PST
does the human's imagination know that it isn't actually a brief blip in the mind of God?

----




ANd (none / 0) (#38)
by PotatoError on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:36:25 AM PST
how does God know he isn't just the imagination of Humans?
God might be almighty but he can't know whether or not he knows everything.

Afterall if there was something he didn't know about then he wouldn't know would he?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Please... (none / 0) (#43)
by hauntedattics on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 07:31:13 AM PST
look for the inherent contradiction in your post and get back to me. Then we can talk.



Okay (none / 0) (#49)
by PotatoError on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 03:05:31 PM PST
Q. How can you be sure God is almighty?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Honestly... (none / 0) (#53)
by hauntedattics on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 07:49:16 AM PST
I can't be "sure" that God is anything, if by "sure" you mean "able to prove by scientific or other means." I can't "prove" that God is almighty, or omniscient, or even that He exists. It's just becoming increasingly clear to me that my life doesn't make sense any other way.



 
Why is PotatoError allowed to post? (none / 0) (#60)
by anti filidor on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 09:50:35 PM PST
I don't mean to be crass, but surely we all can agree that the level of discourse around here would be raised if a certain spud were eliminated.


 
Would you please (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by jvance on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 04:44:57 PM PST
haul Russell out to the trash where he belongs?
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Would you please (none / 0) (#55)
by jvance on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 04:33:35 PM PST
haul Berkeley out to the trash where he belongs?
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
So true Potatomeister (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 07:24:59 PM PST
Dem's Christians believe in some book written thousands of years ago?? And though Bible says "Thou shalt not lie" maybe, like, God was totally lying about that too? Who'd know???

The Bible can't be truth dude! OK, well, sure, maybe it was written by 40 or more different men over a period of 2,000 years and displays unity, sure, maybe it has historical accuracy far superior than the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations, sure, maybe we have a copy of the dead sea scrolls from 150 B.C. which correlate almost exactly with the current O.T. translations and sure, maybe no archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference, but, but, but, there's no fooling me, I know lies when I see them!

Although disbelieving the Bible means that I must also eliminate belief in any other ancient document (which have far, far, less evidence going for them) it's a small price to pay, right?

In fact, unless something was written on Adequacy during the last week, I have no reason to believe it at all.


ok, here's the deal (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 08:19:49 PM PST
The Judeo-Christian Bible is just one cultural instance of God who exists because (1) humans improve by contemplating misery and unselfishness, which is the entire value and exercise of all genuine religions; and (2), if he didnt exist, we'd be forced to believe in something a lot worse, like The Invisible Hand or The Selfish Gene.

But does he really exist? Well, slugs arent "wired" to contemplate misery or unselfishness, I dont think, which means such contemplation isnt strictly necessary for strictly biological survival. Ergo, chalk one up for His genuine existence.

It's a little more complicated than that, but the baby is out of milk and I dont have time to argue with the hellbound g**k heathens itching to insinuate their "proofs" into the discussion. Remember: you can have faith, or you can have doubt, and all the difference either makes mortally, "logically", objectively, scientifically, etc is zero. But once atheists put their measuring instruments aside, it's hard to ignore the transmuted effects of their tormented soul on their personal, unappealing character.

Peace.


cultural instance ... (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 08:25:41 PM PST
should be cultural artifact. There's only one God, but he appears differently to different cultures. This is obvious because he consistently speaks and acts through culture-bound human intermediaries.

QED, or something.


 
Fuck you, you stupid piece of INSULTING SHIT!!! (none / 0) (#17)
by PotatoError on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:01:24 PM PST
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY LONG HOURS WE SPEND DESIGNING JUICERS????!!! AND THEN YOU COME ALONG AND CALL OUR TECHNOLOGICAL MASTERPIECES AN "industrial sized DC motor relabelled as a juicing machine". WELL IVE GOT NEWS FOR YOU BUDDY - WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE YOUR SHIT ANYMORE.
YOU'LL HAVE TO LIVE WITH SQUASH FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. HAHHAAHAHHAAAA
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Typical (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 02:19:28 PM PST
...of someone who wants to be thought of as "different", to make such bold statements as fact. Of course, they are facts to you. You are so darn smart, to have figured out from those irrefutable facts that life is MEANINGLESS. The feign of humor at the end, perhaps in a celebratory tone, only highlights the meaningless of your very words. You are as empty as the argument you pose, nothing more than logical constructs surrounding a void. The crutch which you use to restore your flawed walk through life is just as imaginary as the crutch you denounce. You are the mindless sheep, you are the dime-a-dozen skeptic that tragically and paradoxically allow yourself to be controlled by religion. For you speak against it with such emotion, surely you must be under its influence. Otherwise, you would simply allow people to do as they wish, as you yourself wish to do. But throughout your words I see the strings of manipulation, and you are not the one doing the manipulation. God is. Fancy that, something that you know does not exist is inspiring you to act as though it does.

I am atheist, and not ashamed of it. Yet, I am not so foolish to be proud of it either. Your words reek of false pride, the type of emotion that is felt when someone lies to themselves often enough to find pleasure in such lies. Weak minds have a chance, but minds that enjoy their state of disarray have no chance to be restored. I don't want you to remember these words for too long, but I fear that your conscience will not allow you to forget them. I apologize for making your meaningless life take on that which it opposes.


 
So you admit defeat, eh? (none / 0) (#7)
by because it isnt on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 03:46:03 AM PST
You win. Your brilliance has beaten me soundly, sir. There is no God. Congradulations.

So you won't mind shaving that silly beard off and joining us liberalists for a luncheon of ham sandwiches, will you?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Hey, I know which way the wind blows. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by elenchos on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:01:10 PM PST
The beard and turban are just simple curtosey towards our conquerors, not a religion. Unlike certain TERRORISTS I could name, I know when I've been beaten and can adapt to the new order.

Let George and Jenna and Colin get stoned to death in the streets. I'm going to prosper in the new Muslim hegonomy.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
Here is the truth baou t GOD!!! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by derek3000 on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:39:16 AM PST
ALL of you shep out there are being brianwashed! IF there IS a god, then why would you need to go to tthe hospital? HUh? Huh?


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Brutha!!! yo no fool! dumbass shep ppl fools (n/t) (none / 0) (#9)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:59:51 AM PST



 
Interesting (none / 0) (#12)
by jvance on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 09:36:22 AM PST
Under your conditions, I would be making the exact same arguments.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Yeah (none / 0) (#21)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 06:55:47 PM PST
Those arguments are the all time favourites in atheist land, I used them myself when I was an atheist (well, I was a disgruntled theist really) and have heard them a bazillion times since.

Devil's advocate is not a role I like to do regularly (it makes me feel dirty) but it does ensure that I know what I believe in and why.


I don't think you understood him. (none / 0) (#25)
by RobotSlave on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 07:52:29 PM PST
Think about it for a bit, eh?

The problem here, Ben, is that you haven't taken up the atheist position at all. What you've done instead is adopted an opposing persona and dumbed it down in order to discredit your opponents.

It seems no-one is particularly interested in that game.

If you'd care to argue the atheist position without insulting my intelligence, I'd be happy to return the favor.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Oh crap. (none / 0) (#29)
by elenchos on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 09:35:40 PM PST
You mean I could have won? And I went and gave up because his kung fu seemed so strong.

Next time I'll get him. Next time...

On the upside, though, at least I haven't wasted any time but-kissing some nebulous "God".


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Look (none / 0) (#31)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:14:48 PM PST
Admit defeat, whatever. What I want to know is, are you gonna give me recommendations for a juicer or not?


I hear Niclole Brown Simpson was quite the juicer. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by elenchos on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:20:29 PM PST
But her juicing days are over, alas.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Wait (none / 0) (#33)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:48:03 PM PST
I don't get it.

O.J. and Nicole Simpson have nothing to do with .... oh, oh, I see it now, you sick, sick puppy.

Let me guess, you also get off on rotten.com?


He doesn't. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by tkatchev on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:56:12 PM PST
He only pretends he does, to make himself look all tough and manly.

So, elenchos, tell me about your father...


--
Peace and much love...




Well... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by elenchos on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:30:00 PM PST
...He's an unstable, violent recovering alcoholic suffering from massive PTSD from his time in Viet Nam as a Navy SEAL. Several wise individuals have described him as "the toughest human being I have ever known." Like Ron Kovics (sp?) he was very active in Veterans Against the War, but later became a predictable Limbaugh dittohead. He cares more about the Second Amendment and his dog and cat than almost anything else.

His recent work includes posting on the web conspiracy theories implicationg GWB in the 911 attacks that would make Davig Icke look sane.

We pretty much don't talk any more.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Maybe... (none / 0) (#50)
by poltroon on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 09:15:38 PM PST
he was too young when he had kids. I mean, who knows, maybe in a year or two he'll suddenly be all mellow and sane? You could check back once in a while to find out... My dad was approximately 50 when he had kids, and by that time had worked the alcoholic out of himself.


Well, not right away. (none / 0) (#51)
by elenchos on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 10:24:30 PM PST
I set an alarm in my Palm for April 19, 2007 with the note "Call Dad". Just to check -- probably I'll have to give it another five years after that.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
Lighten up man (none / 0) (#30)
by Ben Reid on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:01:36 PM PST
It wasn't meant to be a serious attempt at pretending to be an atheist, doesn't take Sherlock to figure that out. My post to Jvance was probably the only serious remark I've made in this diary.

However, now you mention it, yes I have re-iterated and dumbed down the most common arguments I come across in atheist/theist debating circles, especially the biggie, the problem of pain. Was I expecting serious responses in this diary? Hardly.

Take one of the blue chill pills and two of the yellow ones.


Are you serious? (none / 0) (#36)
by RobotSlave on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:06:27 AM PST
Is your faith no more to you than a trifle, then, something to be tossed about in jest?

I thought for a moment that you might be be ready to actually test your faith, to explore Doubt, and explore it seriously, in a potentially anguishing persuit of a deeper understanding of your belief.

Aquinas, it would seem, you are not.

Run along then, with your little japes and jests, if such light-hearted antics help you to keep Doubt at bay. I'm sure your God won't mind. He's supposed to be the forgiving sort after all, isn't He?

It's a pity, really. I could make one heck of a case for the existence of God, far better than the vague handwaving and repetition of the words "love" and "ineffable" that too many christians resort to, but I'm not going to bother with it if you regard this whole thing as a mere joke.

So as long as this is all just fun and games, though, why don't you show your priest the diary entry, and all the funny comments, too? I'm sure you two could have a nice little chuckle over it.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

at last, I can post here (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by nathan on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 07:23:24 AM PST
Let's take the word 'atheist' not as a statement of one's positive disbelief in a god. Let's consider it as being, as best we can, a statement of a cosmopolitan, culturally neutral, neutrally skeptic position; as being informed by a less parochial viewpoint than, perhaps, those advanced by the likes of John Knox, Martin Luther, St Thomas Aquinas, and Dante. Let's make the point, right here, that religious or not, no one can any longer make the claim that the holy texts of any religion are a reliable guide to the natural world. What little cosmology there is in the Christian Bible, for instance, is plainly the cosmology of a middle-Eastern tribe without an advanced knowledge of astronomy.

The debate is not to take place over the grounds of the historical veracity of holy texts. Even literally miraculous historical accuracy would not be sufficient grounds for believing in a god, because belief in gods requires us to discard the idea that naturalistic explanations can possibly be complete at all. The debate is not to take place in the a posteriori world at all. The debate will have to be philosophical because, except for the god of the gaps, the gods have no place left to go in the phenomenological world. (Someone less merciful than me would say that, once the gods were driven from the phenomenological world, we would have to ask ourselves if the gods we are considering have any relevance to the idea of the gods as conceived in antiquity.)

And, in fact, when reduced to this level, there is nothing left for the religious to say. Myths and legends, phenomena of a different consciousness as they are, are almost incoherent in a modern reading; Abraham's sacrifice being no less a mythic expression than the wooden people turning into monkeys in the Popol Vuh. Of course, we can map our own truths on to these old texts, because the old authors were human beings too. That doesn't make them infallible guides to action or unbreachable frontiers on inquiry in modern thought.

If there is an absolute, it must be universal to humankind: nihil humani generis a me alienum est. To say otherwise is to render the idea of an absolute incoherent. If it's not absolute for all, it's not absolute for anything. There are fundamentals to human nature, but they are not to be found in slopeheaded worship of a past which, like all pasts, brings forth oppression in the guise of morality, cruelty in the name of the family, and viciousness in the name of justice. We must instead seek the truth within, in the only way it could possibly be obtained; and we must do it one by one. The idea of a particular god is therefore not only meaningless but pernicious and dangerous.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

A question... (none / 0) (#52)
by Illiterate Bum on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 06:56:52 AM PST
Neat. That was swell. Quite super, actually. However, before I take a stab in this little game (which has just become infinitely more interesting) can I ask exactly which position that you are taking, Nathan? An atheist denies not only [place name of religion here], but any sort of spirituality at all. He does not believe in disbelief- he denies belief and faith altogether, cobbling together his own code for existence from the absolutes that exist within the realm of science and fact. Theories, ideas, and objects that are readily tangible are the atheist's best friend. An atheist denies the existence of any fundamental truth behind human nature, as such a concept would negate chance and circumstance. The human race could very well have been a fluke, if not for a few random genetic mutations- hell, the probability of life coming into existence at all (using current scientific theory) is so mind-bogglingly small so as to be considered nil.

There are fundamentals to human nature.

To an atheist, any fundamental truth to human nature must also apply to all living life forms, sentient or not. If an absolute only applied to the human race, than that means that there was a greater power at work, manipulating events (and therefore negating chance) to ensure that humanity came into being as it did. By it's own definition, an absolute must have always existed, and if there exists an absolute that only applies to the human race, than that implies that an intelligent hand was at work to ensure that humanity would come around to fit that certain absolute. As such, the atheist lives in a world of relativism, denying the existence of any idea or concept that does not have concrete support or proven scientific research behind it. Any morals, codes, or ideas that the atheist produces apply to him only, and to no one else, whether they fall into the category of "good","bad",or that nebulous grey zone that perplexes so many philosophers.

(*taking sixth shot of scotch*)

Well, I'm pleasantly drunk. I'm fairly certain I had a point somewhere... oh yes. So, Nathan, while that was a neat little side-stepping argument against any sort of fundamentalist religion, you are still in a sense advocating spirituality. Can I assume that you are not arguing against the theist POV, and that I should put together a more sober and coherent argument for the fundamentalist religion POV?

Oh, and lest I get too serious, click.
-----

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

 
My thoughts on God (none / 0) (#54)
by First Incision on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 08:51:36 AM PST
I do not believe in God because of any historical interpretation of the Bible or philosophical system. I believe in God because he has revealed himself to me spiritually, emotionally, through the actions and thoughts of others and myself. This won't make sense to you, and it shouldn't. I don't intellectually understand it. God is too big and too fundamental to explain with feeble human language. He must be experienced in a late night prayer, in a transcendent Mass, or in the unconditional love of a fellow human believer. I will not try to reason the existence of God with you or anyone, because in my opinion, it can't be done.

Yes, discussing God with naturalistic terms is pointless. He is above nature, and I believe when He operates in the physical world, He does not operate by the rules defined for His creations. No science will prove or disprove Him, because He is not of the natural world.

Why do I find the old texts important? It is not because of any scientific or historical truths. If such truths are contained in the Bible, it is mostly secondary to the main message. God has intervened in my life, but not to any huge world-changing extent. But he has chosen prophets and leaders in the past. He has had intimate relationships with these people that I can only dream of. He sent His son to voice His message. Yes, our tales of these happenings are old. Many of them are told in the mythic style of a culture now alien to us. Some of these stories seem to be little more than fuzzy artifacts of a time when God directly placed His hands into the domain of the natural.

But does this make the old texts any less important? No! There is something to be learned from each one of them. The Bible contains a wealth of wisdom and insight into the nature of God and the nature of man. To merely know God exists provides little understanding of Him. It may be futile to try to fully understand Him, but we will try anyway. When you truly love someone, you want to know everything about that person. So I will continue to read and cherish the books of the Bible.

In closing, I would say that I cannot prove the existence of God for you. Only He may do that. But if you want to find Him, it will help a lot if you are actively searching. I will be praying that some day you will have a change of heart, seek God, and find His loving embrace.

_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

You're preaching to the choir. (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 05:14:55 PM PST
This month is opposite month, you see, where the atheists assume the theist's POV and vice versa. From reading Nathan's past posts, he obviously believes in a god, or a theist's viewpoint. He was just making an intelligent argument for the atheist's viewpoint, because, well, that's the name of the game for now. A fun little game that I'm sure you probably played if you ever took a debate course. Now, can you challenge your faith, explore doubt, and make an intelligent argument (like Nathan did) that disproves the existence of god(s), or a spiritual force?


Sorry (none / 0) (#59)
by First Incision on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 07:58:21 PM PST
Sometimes this place gets so confusing, that I forget what I am supposed to be doing. Maybe later. I still have 10 or so days.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
Good doggie! (1.00 / 1) (#58)
by RobotSlave on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 06:46:51 PM PST
Your treat is in the queue.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Hey Slave... (none / 0) (#42)
by hauntedattics on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 07:27:53 AM PST
You're awfully arch, you know, for a figment.



 
OK (none / 0) (#61)
by Ben Reid on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 12:04:24 AM PST
You know what, you're right, to have treated my faith in a trivial manner was wrong and my condescending attitude was out of place, I apologise to you and have asked God for forgiveness. I believe God has pointed out to me over the last few days of rest and worship that joining Adequacy has been detrimental to my relationship with Him (nathan, tkatchev, I think you should also think carefully along these lines); this will probably be my last week of posting/reading here (yes, yes, I know, don't hit your ass on the way out).

My whole diary was sort of a knee-jerk reaction to the ridicule and hate I have dished out to me at the hand of atheists at other forums, who make a point of deriding my faith at every opportunity while refusing to acknowledge that all the time they are chock full of faith themselves. Slave', I wouldn't put you in that category mate.

Even though I believe that devil's advocate would have been an interesting idea for this month (and I also believe I can present a pretty convincing case for the atheist), I wasn't thinking of starting this line of thought in this diary. My juvenile arguments of the atheist viewpoint eliminated this possibility.

However, yes, I would be interested in hearing your case for the existence of God, you may even want to hear my serious attempt at taking a different persona. If you like, I will start another diary entry? If not, send me an email or a note via carrier pigeon.

Peace.

p.s. yes, Aquinas I am not


 
Nope (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by jvance on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:07:06 AM PST
I meant that I can't jump to the other side of the fence since I'm sitting on it. I'm neither atheist nor theist.

All the "proofs" of the existence of God fall short, yet I cannot reject the possibility of his existence. The best evidence, in my mind, is Man's constant striving to know the Divine.

I don't know if that makes any sense. It's awfully late, and I'm going to bed.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Ahhh (none / 0) (#16)
by PotatoError on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 04:57:08 PM PST
You say all that but you dont even think it? no u dont. If it wasn't what you said it would be something different wouldn't it? So what's your point? I could sit here telling you how I believe that you don't believe that which everyone else here does but would you listen?? NO!! Because you DONT BELIEVE!!! That is, you dont think that maybe what they believe in is what you are talking about and vice-versa! Yea, next time come up with a SOUND argument instead of making assumptions about belief.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Opposite month, eh? Okee doke... (none / 0) (#35)
by Chocolate Milkshake on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:57:07 PM PST
QUAVER, NONBELIEVERS, FOR GOD EXISTS!

Consider an object across the room. Very well, that thing over there. Take a good look at it. Now shut your eyes for a moment and open them. Notice the object went away. Do you have any way of confirming the object WAS STILL THERE WHILE YOUR EYES WERE SHUT?!?!? No Nope Nohow.

Yes I know, right now you're thinking: "well I could hear it (or smell it, etc.)". True enough, true enough. But could you confirm the existence of an object IN ABSENCE OF SENSORY INPUT??? Nosir, Nada Nyet.

Try imagining a color you've never seen, a sound you've never heard. YOU CAN'T DO IT. You can only imagine things in terms of what you've already preceived! Thus, we can only understand being in terms of consciousness. To put it another way for there to be existence, there must be a MIND that comprehends (in the sense of grasps) that which exists.

Okay fine, you say, so what's the point? Well, have you ever stopped to think what keeps the world going when no one is looking? Why do things remain where they are instead of randomly rearranging themselves every time we turn away? For that matter, what is it that sustains YOUR mind when you are asleep, etc?

Well, obviously the answer is that the universe is continually in the awareness of an infinite,eternal mind that comprehends and sustains all. That mind is GOD. There you have it. Proof, positive and empirical, that God exists. Rejoice in the great sustainer. Worship him. Kill those who deny his existence.


 
I'll bite. (none / 0) (#40)
by because it isnt on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 03:47:06 AM PST
god obviously exists, duh.
  • first off, it DOES NOT MATTER whether god exists OR NOT!!! i HAVE FAITH in god and BELIEVE IN GOD and that is totally NOT dependant on some PHYSICAL PROOF AND STUFF.
  • secondly, you are SO WRONG to get hung up on this EMPIRICAL PROOF thing because WE COULD BE LIVING IN THE MATRIX but GOD made it instead of the aliens and ALL YOUR PROOF WOULD BE WRONG!
  • i am NOT like those crummy wiccans who are TOTALLY SOLD OUT to FAITH-FASHION. i am COMMITTED TO GOD even if my life gets HARDER and WORSE because of my FAITH. i follow JESUS to make me a BETTER PERSON -- you know, like, PIOUS 'N SHIT.

adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Fuck, this is lame (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 10:32:47 AM PST
Look, you morons can believe whatever you want. Okay? Sound good? If it makes you happy, then I'm all for it. If it provides you with a fear of punishment that keeps you from harming me and my family, then that's good. And hey, if you believe that the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that your Hebrew wind god Yahweh and his stick-pinned son Yeshua bin Yussuf do not exist (???), that's fine. Whatever floats your boat, man. Whatever wets your willy.

But it just seems like Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of little more than blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. And it's getting old. Hell, screw "getting." It was old months ago.


I don't blame you. (none / 0) (#47)
by nathan on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:45:09 PM PST
Easier to flame than, for instance, answer a serious post to this diary.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Re: boat floating, willy wetting (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:25:53 PM PST
But it just seems like Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of little more than blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes

Yeah. :D Ain't it great?


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.