Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Biff the unclean · 11-14-2002, 10:59 AM

Hmmm� YHWH?

We usually write that as Yahweh. But those sneaky Hebrews only let us see the consonants.

Maybe God's name is really Yahoowahoo!

That would explain why he never shows his face and forbids the speaking of his name. He's embarrassed.

What could his parents have been thinking when they named him that, poor guy?

Biff the unclean · 11-14-2002, 11:15 AM

1) Uncreated
Nope, most Gods had parents. Even Zeus was once a baby
2) Supreme
You don't have to be supreme to be a God, look at Venus or Lugh
3) Created the Universe
Nah, that's not a requirement either. Jupiter didn't create the universe and he was king of the Gods.
The Irish Gods thought the universe had always been there-was uncreated.
4) Personal and Intelligent
Again not a requirement of Godhood take Thor or the Dagda
5) Immortal
None of the Hindu Gods are immortal

You don't have the meet any of these requirements to be a God. These are just claims of one specific God, not of a God in general.

Amie · 11-14-2002, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
 What if you lived in the middle of a continent, and had never seen an ocean- and one day you met a sailor, who described a whale to you as being huge, and black, and a vicious attacker of men and their ships. The next day you met a different sailor who called whales huge, and white, and gentle morons, somewhat like cows of the sea. And the next day another sailor with a different tale, and the next day yet another- with no two sailors giving the same description, save that there was fair agreement that whales were big? What would you think about whales if you then went to sea yourself, and found no creature like any of the tales? You'd suspect that whales were a myth, or a joke which old sailors played on landsmen, I think. How is this any different from all the differing tales about this God so many people claim to believe in?

Hi Jobar
I agree with your analogy. In that particular context it would be incredibly difficult if even possible at all to gain any type of undestanding of whales. In order to understand what people are saying there would have to be at some level more parallels, more consistencies for you to understand what the hell these people are talking about. And the ocean would also be a difficulty. To describe the ocean and whales to someone who has never seen them or experienced it for themself is certainly not out of reach, however due to the inconsistencies among the sailors I imagine that would leave one feeling even more confused than before...
I agree it is something you would have to see for yourself to believe in especially since you went out to the ocean and saw no whales. Objectively speaking if it was me, I would not believe either and I would chalk up the stories as myths as well. Your analogy is a good one Jobar.

MortalWombat · 11-14-2002, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
What if you lived in the middle of a continent, and had never seen an ocean- and one day you met a sailor, who described a whale to you as being huge, and black, and a vicious attacker of men and their ships. The next day you met a different sailor who called whales huge, and white, and gentle morons, somewhat like cows of the sea. And the next day another sailor with a different tale, and the next day yet another- with no two sailors giving the same description, save that there was fair agreement that whales were big? What would you think about whales if you then went to sea yourself, and found no creature like any of the tales? You'd suspect that whales were a myth, or a joke which old sailors played on landsmen, I think. How is this any different from all the differing tales about this God so many people claim to believe in?

We don't even have to use a hypothetical example. Would a better analogy be people's description of aliens? Some say they are small and gray with large eyes. Some say they are rather like Nordic humans. Some say reptilian. Some say insect-like. Some say they have physical corporeal bodies, while others claim they are more apparitional and ghost-like. But they all basically claim that they come from UFOs and interact with people on earth.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]

Biff the unclean · 11-14-2002, 01:36 PM

Your analogy is a poor one Jobar
In it sailors have actually been to the sea and have actually seen some whales. To make it accurate they would have to only claim to be sailors but have never seen a boat. They would have to claim to have been to the sea but only not have gone there, they couldn't know if there really was a sea or not. And then they would have to claim to have seen whales when really they have only imagined whales.
All the information would have had to just pop into the "sailors" heads and be completely unrelated to the real world that they knew

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]

onegreatperson · 11-14-2002, 01:38 PM

Well shit, everytime I post something someone tries to move it to another post, it's because

A)They are christian, and trust me we have them in here. They usually make asinie statements like "Oh yes! I agree that no one can prove the existance of God except the Bible". You know stupid shit like that.

B)They are assholes (enough said).

C)A 3 word sentence: No fucking consideration!

"god" God and 'God' continued...

1st of all an atheist doesn't say "Gee, I don't believe in God", but "I don't believe their is a God, or god, or goddess, or Goddess. I don't try and differentiate all but the idea of having a capital 'G' is synonymous to the name or something like that. Anywho! I still don't understand why people are trying to prove that a supreme being exist or doesn't exist, what we should be proving is the ability of this supreme being "what it is limited too" "why it is limited or not limited" in fact someday I think I'll make a game called "Build Your Own God".
Once you start exasperating the idea of a supreme being, weaknesses and strengths you begin to find out how silly it is. The idea of a benign or wrathful supreme being (I almost type burrito) is simply wonderful, and why? Well because your supreme being can kick the other supreme being's ass. But then we run into a problem. Here it is. Billy believe's in the Biblical "God", and John believe's in "Buddha". Now I can almost bet that you may think "well hell that is okay with me!" But then we come to a problem. What happens when it affects politics? And I am sure you can think of many examples. Who is correct then? Does a supreme being really matter? Or is it more of a sense of what is wright or wrong, and yes wright and wrong can be judged by a person as well a supreme being. Therefore that would be a cop out of an answer.

Oh well here it is...
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Shadowy Man · 11-14-2002, 01:53 PM

Biff the Unclean:

Quote:

Hmmm? YHWH?

We usually write that as Yahweh. But those sneaky Hebrews only let us see the consonants.

Actually, it's an acronym for "I Am That I Am". So, he's actually popeye.

Keith Russell · 11-14-2002, 02:28 PM

Greetings:

Until you've actually found evidence yourself that 'God' exists, you have no reason (literally) to believe. Others may SAY that 'God' exists, or point to claims made by the authors of books, or the preachers of sermons, but those are--also--claims.

Until one has actually seen for one's self the evidence that aliens (or whales) exist, one should not believe that such things are real.

One should never allow a claim to take the place of firsthand, independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence.

Aliens may exist, or they may not.

But, I am not going to believe they exist, until I have more than the testimony of 'beleivers' to support the claim that aliens are real.

(And the same is true for any claim, whether of whales, the Loch Ness monster, 'God', etc.)

Keith.

onegreatperson · 11-14-2002, 02:48 PM

Keith, I am not saying 'God' exist. I am basically saying the same thing you are. I am an ATHEIST. However don't you think that if a christian were to read that then they would figure that their is a way to debate the authenticity of it all? I mean come on, both you and I such a being doesn't exist. But does the orthodox believer actually think the way you and me do?

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

onegreatperson · 11-14-2002, 04:23 PM

Chaos and Order. A fundamentally established persona-ideaology, used for either the good of nature or the bad of nature.
Sometimes you can find chaos in order and order in chaos. So who is to say that world is what it is? This "God", the prototype poster boy for the world's ebb. Is exactly a weilding power that the religious habituant can use to define the very existence of humans. It is the easiest crutch. The whims of chaos and order themselves could be related to as a "god" "goddess". Someone or something controls us! That is what the up-right-wing-advocate would say. To morally structure a scene and conduct it as you were so near the supreme being you are the supreme being.
This is why the atheist and theist exist. The theist believes, the atheist questions. The theist see's the atheist as a "sheep unto his flock". The atheist see's the theist as a dictator of what happens and when it happens.
Still the theist will coax the atheist into what they want them to believe, but the atheist is still questioning.
The idea of a supreme being is what theist's make of it. It is the superb leader, it is the mother, it is the milk that the retarded child succles on.
The idea of a supreme being is humorous to the atheist. It is the crutch, it is the faux story made to lead people into belief or be damned to a doom, it is the belief that cannot be pursuaded upon an animal.
That is god, and if god is dead, then their is no threat, but if god never existed then those that believe have cruel intentions.

"Greater is he that is in me, than he that is in the world"
-The christian, The bible.

"I'd rather question, than pretend to be a worshiper of something that tells me what to do, and when to do it. Because when I screw up, I know it's my fault, and I don't need some cosmic force to make me un-fuck myself!"
-me

Well food for thought, anyone!
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

11-14-2002, 01:36 PM	#15
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Your analogy is a poor one Jobar In it sailors have actually been to the sea and have actually seen some whales. To make it accurate they would have to only claim to be sailors but have never seen a boat. They would have to claim to have been to the sea but only not have gone there, they couldn't know if there really was a sea or not. And then they would have to claim to have seen whales when really they have only imagined whales. All the information would have had to just pop into the "sailors" heads and be completely unrelated to the real world that they knew [ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-14-2002, 10:59 AM	#11
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Hmmm� YHWH? We usually write that as Yahweh. But those sneaky Hebrews only let us see the consonants. Maybe God's name is really Yahoowahoo! That would explain why he never shows his face and forbids the speaking of his name. He's embarrassed. What could his parents have been thinking when they named him that, poor guy?

11-14-2002, 11:15 AM	#12
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	1) Uncreated Nope, most Gods had parents. Even Zeus was once a baby 2) Supreme You don't have to be supreme to be a God, look at Venus or Lugh 3) Created the Universe Nah, that's not a requirement either. Jupiter didn't create the universe and he was king of the Gods. The Irish Gods thought the universe had always been there-was uncreated. 4) Personal and Intelligent Again not a requirement of Godhood take Thor or the Dagda 5) Immortal None of the Hindu Gods are immortal You don't have the meet any of these requirements to be a God. These are just claims of one specific God, not of a God in general.

11-14-2002, 01:38 PM	#16
onegreatperson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 22	Well shit, everytime I post something someone tries to move it to another post, it's because A)They are christian, and trust me we have them in here. They usually make asinie statements like "Oh yes! I agree that no one can prove the existance of God except the Bible". You know stupid shit like that. B)They are assholes (enough said). C)A 3 word sentence: No fucking consideration! "god" God and 'God' continued... 1st of all an atheist doesn't say "Gee, I don't believe in God", but "I don't believe their is a God, or god, or goddess, or Goddess. I don't try and differentiate all but the idea of having a capital 'G' is synonymous to the name or something like that. Anywho! I still don't understand why people are trying to prove that a supreme being exist or doesn't exist, what we should be proving is the ability of this supreme being "what it is limited too" "why it is limited or not limited" in fact someday I think I'll make a game called "Build Your Own God". Once you start exasperating the idea of a supreme being, weaknesses and strengths you begin to find out how silly it is. The idea of a benign or wrathful supreme being (I almost type burrito) is simply wonderful, and why? Well because your supreme being can kick the other supreme being's ass. But then we run into a problem. Here it is. Billy believe's in the Biblical "God", and John believe's in "Buddha". Now I can almost bet that you may think "well hell that is okay with me!" But then we come to a problem. What happens when it affects politics? And I am sure you can think of many examples. Who is correct then? Does a supreme being really matter? Or is it more of a sense of what is wright or wrong, and yes wright and wrong can be judged by a person as well a supreme being. Therefore that would be a cop out of an answer. Oh well here it is... <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

11-14-2002, 02:28 PM	#18
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Until you've actually found evidence yourself that 'God' exists, you have no reason (literally) to believe. Others may SAY that 'God' exists, or point to claims made by the authors of books, or the preachers of sermons, but those are--also--claims. Until one has actually seen for one's self the evidence that aliens (or whales) exist, one should not believe that such things are real. One should never allow a claim to take the place of firsthand, independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence. Aliens may exist, or they may not. But, I am not going to believe they exist, until I have more than the testimony of 'beleivers' to support the claim that aliens are real. (And the same is true for any claim, whether of whales, the Loch Ness monster, 'God', etc.) Keith.

11-14-2002, 02:48 PM	#19
onegreatperson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 22	Keith, I am not saying 'God' exist. I am basically saying the same thing you are. I am an ATHEIST. However don't you think that if a christian were to read that then they would figure that their is a way to debate the authenticity of it all? I mean come on, both you and I such a being doesn't exist. But does the orthodox believer actually think the way you and me do? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

11-14-2002, 04:23 PM	#20
onegreatperson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 22	Chaos and Order. A fundamentally established persona-ideaology, used for either the good of nature or the bad of nature. Sometimes you can find chaos in order and order in chaos. So who is to say that world is what it is? This "God", the prototype poster boy for the world's ebb. Is exactly a weilding power that the religious habituant can use to define the very existence of humans. It is the easiest crutch. The whims of chaos and order themselves could be related to as a "god" "goddess". Someone or something controls us! That is what the up-right-wing-advocate would say. To morally structure a scene and conduct it as you were so near the supreme being you are the supreme being. This is why the atheist and theist exist. The theist believes, the atheist questions. The theist see's the atheist as a "sheep unto his flock". The atheist see's the theist as a dictator of what happens and when it happens. Still the theist will coax the atheist into what they want them to believe, but the atheist is still questioning. The idea of a supreme being is what theist's make of it. It is the superb leader, it is the mother, it is the milk that the retarded child succles on. The idea of a supreme being is humorous to the atheist. It is the crutch, it is the faux story made to lead people into belief or be damned to a doom, it is the belief that cannot be pursuaded upon an animal. That is god, and if god is dead, then their is no threat, but if god never existed then those that believe have cruel intentions. "Greater is he that is in me, than he that is in the world" -The christian, The bible. "I'd rather question, than pretend to be a worshiper of something that tells me what to do, and when to do it. Because when I screw up, I know it's my fault, and I don't need some cosmic force to make me un-fuck myself!" -me Well food for thought, anyone! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.