Hi John Clark If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/10/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-09, 10:37:05 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On Sat, Sep 8, 2012? Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: >You call yourself an atheist, I do, but that's only because I also have the rather old fashioned belief that words should mean something. > which means you reject every notion of God, of any religion, does it not? Apparently not. If we live in a world where words mean whatever Jason Resch wants them to mean then I'm not sure if I'm a atheist or not. However I do know that the idea of a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe is brain dead dumb. And I do know that I have never heard any religion express a single deep idea that a scientist or mathematician hadn't explained first and done so much much better. You tell me if that's good enough to make me a atheist or not. > you cannot simply reject the weakest idea, ignore the stronger ones, That is just about the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in my life! The key to wisdom is to reject weak ideas and embrace strong ones regardless of where they originated. > rejecting the idea of Santa Clause won't make you an atheist I am a Santa Clause atheist and you are a Thor atheist, and in fact you are a atheist for nearly all of the thousands and thousands of Gods that the Human race has created over the centuries, I just go one God further than you do. > In my post, I showed that the notion of God as eternal, immutable, unlimited, > self-existent truth appears in many religions. Do you reject this concept of > God? No, I don't reject that true things are true, and I don't reject that a being that was eternal and knew everything that was true would have superpowers, and I don't reject that Superman in the comics had X ray vision or that Harry Potter was good at magic. Perhaps you find this sort of? fantasy role-playing philosophically enlightening but I don't. > I have studied some of the beliefs of other religions. So have I and I've concluded that to a first approximation one religious franchise is about as idiotic as another. > I am showing the common themes: "self-existent" and "cause of existence" Just saying that God caused Himself to exist without even giving a hint as to how He managed to accomplish that interesting task is as vacuous as saying the Universe cause itself to exist with no attempt at a explanation of how it works. >> The following sentence has identical informational content: "in the >> beginning was stuff, and the stuff was with stuff, and stuff was stuff". >> Funny ASCII characters do not make things more profound. > Logos is not a meaningless term, Logos has more meanings than you can shake a stick at, none of them profound; "Logos" can mean a reason or a speech or a word or a opinion or a wish or a cause or a account or a explanation or many other things; when religion says "in the beginning there was logos" it means "stuff"; but I do admit that "logos" sounds cooler than "stuff" and is more impressive to the rubes. > and therefore the above expresses a meaningful idea about the notion of god, Yes, the sentence "at the beginning of stuff there was stuff" is not only meaningful it is also without question true, its just not very deep. Oh well, you got 2 out of 3. > which is almost word-for-word identical to Keppler's quote below. If God is geometry like Kepler thought then I'm not a atheist. If God is an ashtray then I'm not a atheist either. > mathematics is a form of theologh. OK two can play this silly word game, theology is the study of the gastrointestinal tract. > > Only a fool would say truth does not exist so with that definition God > > certainly exists. > Ahh, so you are not an atheist after all. In the English language I'm a atheist but In the Jasonresch language I am not, the definition of "God" in that language is whatever it takes to be able to say "I believe in God". The important thing is to be able to chant those 4 words in your mantra, what the words actually mean is of only secondary importance. > This is not re-inventing language to keep the ASCII letters "God", this > concept of God has existed in Hinduism for thousands of years. I might be impressed if only you had bothered to say what "this" is. > I had quotes from religions texts saying that "The infinite truth is the > source of Brahman", So the Brahman has infinite truth because He is omniscient and He is omniscient because He has infinite truth; and a black dog is a dog that is black and a dog that is black is a black dog. This is the level of profundity that I've come to expect from religion. > and "Brahman is the totality of what exists". If Brahman and Universe are synonyms then Brahman certainly exists, but I am not impressed by the depth of Indian religious thought. > This is Platonism before Plato, and not so easy to refute. That is absolutely true, it would be very very difficult to refute that the totality of existence exists; but I'm not sure that proves that the ancient Indian philosophers were deep thinkers. > Do you really see no connection at all between the notions of mathematical > truth and some of the ideas found in these religions? I think that saying "God is mathematics" does not help in the slightest degree in figuring out how the world works and provides zero philosophical value; although is sounds nice as long as you don't think about it. > I see you ignored the names of God in Islam, Names? What the hell difference would it make if God's name was Seymour Butts or I P Daily? > as well as the Sikh mantra, which are very clear on this. "There is one > creator whose name is truth", and among Islam's names: "The Eternal, > Immutable, Truth". Do you really care what these jackasses sing in their mindless mantras? I don't. > Platonism is the most common viewpoint of modern mathematicians, and this > leads to the existence of infinity. OK, there is no largest integer. What does that have to do with a omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe? > many religions already profess that God is the infinite: Crossword puzzles are more fun than this sort of silly wordplay. > "Everything that is", "Totality of Existence", So everything is everything. Wake me up when religion says something interesting. ? John K Clark ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.