What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: bob young on 27 Mar 2005 23:59 kathryn wrote: > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in > message news:1111880705.429415.226920(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > Denis Loubet wrote: > >> "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> > > wrote in > >> message news:1111874993.415822.226320(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> > What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > >> > >> Well, if it said to excuse the supposed actions of a god, then the > > one > >> saying it is stating that they don't actually care what the god they > > believe > >> in does, or what its motives are, they'll just worship it anyway. > >> > >> It's a big denial of personal responsibility. It's like saying "I'll > > follow > >> that Hitler guy anywhere. I know he kills Jews, but I'm sure he has > > our best > >> interests at heart." > > > > Well, for some people, as long as they are comforted, that is all that > > matters. > > it's when they stopped being comforted and start imposing their belief > system on everyone else is when the problem starts Well they have a feeling at the back of their minds that their god could well be imaginary, so the more folks they have believing the same myth the more excuse they have for beleiving it themselves. A kind of snowball effect. Someone once posted 'how can you say god does not exist countless millions believe in him'! It can't get more silly than that!
From: SOB) on 2 Apr 2005 09:00 On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:57:11 -0800, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duckman(a)gfy.slf> wrote: >>>How does one "indulge in atheism"? >> By being stupid. >>>What does it hinder? >> The ability to see Truth and Beauty in the Universe. >So now if I comment on this by saying that people who worship aardvark and >other animal gods surely meet your requirements about seeing truth, I have stated several times that I am not discussing Religion. Yet you are unable to grasp that. >Btw, much like putting a hat and a bra on a cow doesn't make her a model, >neither does capitalizing selected words make bullshit rational. You are obsessed with my use of upper case. I use it to create a proper noun, one that emphasizes the generic classification. For example, instead of talking about physics, we are talking about The Physics. There is a difference. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: Iain on 2 Apr 2005 09:09 The great philosopher-criminologist wrote: > Denis Loubet wrote: > > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> > wrote in > > message news:1111874993.415822.226320(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > > > > Well, if it said to excuse the supposed actions of a god, then the > one > > saying it is stating that they don't actually care what the god they > believe > > in does, or what its motives are, they'll just worship it anyway. > > > > It's a big denial of personal responsibility. It's like saying "I'll > follow > > that Hitler guy anywhere. I know he kills Jews, but I'm sure he has > our best > > interests at heart." > > Well, for some people, as long as they are comforted, that is all that > matters. Yes, but that person then tries to persuade people who care about truth, not comfort, that a god exists. ~Iain
From: SOB) on 2 Apr 2005 09:39 On 2 Apr 2005 06:09:19 -0800, "Iain" <iain_inkster(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Yes, but that person then tries to persuade people who care about >truth, not comfort, that a god exists. Not "a god" - "THEIR god". There is a difference. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: Tom on 2 Apr 2005 13:49
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424de96c.36804441(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:14:33 -0500, "Tom" <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>I don't recall whether or not anyone has shown that the initial point of >>the >>universe requires causality > > "initial point"? > > I use the word Universe with a capital "U" to mean the totality of > physical reality. Our universe is but a part of the Universe. Cf. > Brian Green (op. cit.) for the latest. Yeah SOB, I now see that you are spreading much Bullshit that I must capitalize the word 'bullshit' to separate it from that of a reasonable person. |