John C, you have been urged:
 *"If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist."*
*I am not an atheist, an atheist needs a god dy deny, the concept does not
fit into my worldview, but that is besode the point. What is more relevant:*

years ago on another list I received a similar outburst - more politely
than Roger's - and replied: "Wrong position. I do not have to PROVE a
negative, if the positive is questionable. Prove the 'existence' of god
FROM OUTSIDE THE BOX (no dreams, no ancient teachings, no feelings, no
faith, no assumptions/presumptions or questionable written sources (like a
Bible?) including such supposition)  and THEN I will prove you wrong.
End of discussion.
The person left the list.
John Mikes

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  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 <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> *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 everything-list@googlegroups.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 everything-list@googlegroups.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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to