Why

Originally posted by RJHinds
I make none of those assumptions and still believe in God. HalleluYah !!!

Then prove the existence of the supernatural, win a million $ from JRef and the Nobel prize
on top of that otherwise can it.

If you can't prove it you can't know it.

If you believe in the supernatural without proof then you are assuming it exists and that
definitely makes an ASS out of U.

Ditto for your belief in god and everything else you believe contrary to all the evidence.

Originally posted by whodey
Here is some interesting stuff. Anyone hear of the VHEMT? It stands for "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement". Here is just a taste off their web site if you wish to look it up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Question: Are humans the most important species on Earth?

Answer: We certainly have the most ...[text shortened]... they are asking for volunteers first, and then everyone else second.

Scary stuff.

There are also groups who think the world is flat and/or is only 6000 yrs old and that someday
soon a deity will come and destroy the place and all but a few 'faithful' worshippers who get
taken to some kind of supposedly nice afterlife (although every account of heaven I have ever
heard sounds really terrible)

There are small numbers of nutters who will believe almost anything.
Generally they can just be ignored by the overwhelming majority of the rest of humanity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I had thought of intuition, but I did not want to assume anything or to influence
you by suggesting anything. The atheist claim they use reason for their belief
that there is no "God".

Are you being intentionally stupid?

Atheism requires only a LACK of belief in a god or gods.
There are some (like me) who believe that gods don't exist, based on the available EVIDENCE.
But atheists as a whole are defined only by not having a belief in the existence of gods NOT a
belief in the non-existence of gods.

Are you ever going to get this through your skull?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I make none of those assumptions and still believe in God. HalleluYah !!!

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever:

For example; you must assume that there exists something supernatural because your 'God' is supposed to be a supernatural being.

Explain to us how you can believe that your 'God' is supernatural AND exists AND you don't believe that there exists something supernatural....


You make all those assumptions and more.

Originally posted by humy
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever:

For example; you must assume that there exists something supernatural because your 'God' is supposed to be a supernatural being.

Explain to us how you can believe that your 'God' is supernatural AND exists AND you don't believe that there exists something supernatural....


You make all those assumptions and more.

You are the one that is making assumptions. You mean you really can't see
that you are assuming nothing supernatural exists which includes God. You
must assume man came about by accident by assuming that there is such a
thing as evolution so he might be able to evolve from some unknown ape that
apparently has gone extinct. You assume there is no third heaven or any
reason for you to live and die and that all the work, knowledge, and plans
are gone when you die. You should eat, drink, and be merry for you have
only a short time and you will die and know nothing. You might as well assume
the house you live in made itself and so did your car. What difference does it
make to you what is true or false for that knowledge will do you no good when
you are buried in the ground, since you assume that is all there is because you
are only a material body that decays and is mixed with the ground or seas of
the earth. If I am assuming, I prefer my so-called assumptions to yours.
I see nothing good coming from your assumptions for they only lead to nothing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are the one that is making assumptions. You mean you really can't see
that you are assuming nothing supernatural exists which includes God. You
must assume man came about by accident by assuming that there is such a
thing as evolution so he might be able to evolve from some unknown ape that
apparently has gone extinct. You assume there is no third ...[text shortened]... tions to yours.
I see nothing good coming from your assumptions for they only lead to nothing.

“...You mean you really can't see that you are assuming nothing supernatural exists . ...”

Generally, in the absence of evidence for X existing, it is not so much an 'assumption' to assume X does not exist but a reasonable absence of an assumption that X exists. Therefore, in the absence of evidence for X existing, your default assumption should be that it doesn't. This applies if X = gods or God or heaven or afterlife etc. We have no evidence that there is an invisible supernatural teacup orbiting Mars. I find it hard to imagine that you can think that it is just as much an assumption that such a thing exists than it doesn't -but, given your warped logic in your previous posts, it wouldn't surprise me too much if you thought this way. The same applies to a 'god' existing and a 'heaven' existing etc.


“...You mean you really can't see that you are assuming nothing supernatural exists which INCLUDES God. ...” (my emphasis )

you just added one assumption on top of another there in the above. Can't you see that?

The next bit of your post just displays your complete ignorance of what evolution is ( yet again ) -evolution is not an “accident”.

“... there is no third heaven ...”

what is third heaven?
How many heavens are there?

“...or any reason for you to live ...”

I make my own reason to live -no need to assume a vast load of stupid religious crap to do that. One merely needs to use ones own brain to decide a reason.

“...knowledge will do you no good when
you are buried in the ground ...”

Knowledge is for the intellect therefore it is not for the dead therefore the fact that knowledge will not do me any good when I am dead is not valid criticism of knowledge. Analogy: It would be like criticising the wings on a flying aircraft for a particular journey because once the aircraft lands the wings no longer give lift -wings are for giving lift in flight therefore the wings not giving lift when there is no flight is not valid criticism of wings.

“...I prefer my so-called assumptions to yours. ...”

so know you admit you made those assumptions -after denying that you made any of those 7 assumptions I explicitly listed.

“...I see nothing good coming from your assumptions ...”

firstly, they are not so much assumptions but absence of assumptions.
Secondly, what “good” comes from an assumption is totally irrelevant to the probability of that assumption being true and so tells us nothing about how rational it is to have such an assumption.

“...for they only lead to nothing. ...”

neither an assumption nor absence of an assumption “leads” to a change in objective reality. For example, you cannot make there be a god merely by convincing yourself there is a god for the mere presence of the assumption that there is a god does not “lead” to there being a god just as merely the absence of the assumption that there is a god does not “lead” to there being no god.
In the same way, my mere absence of an assumption that there is an 'afterlife' does not “lead” to being no 'afterlife' ( there is no afterlife whether I don't assume an afterlife or not ) so it is not true that my absence of assumptions “only lead to nothing” as you just said above.
Reality is whatever it is regardless of what assumptions you or I make about reality and doesn't care about our assumptions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are the one that is making assumptions. You mean you really can't see
that you are assuming nothing supernatural exists which includes God. You
must assume man came about by accident by assuming that there is such a
thing as evolution so he might be able to evolve from some unknown ape that
apparently has gone extinct. You assume there is no third ...[text shortened]... tions to yours.
I see nothing good coming from your assumptions for they only lead to nothing.

Again with the attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You assume something (god, the supernatural) exists without evidence.

The skeptic/rationalist/scientist doesn't assume anything and looks to see where the evidence leads.

There is no 'assumption' that the supernatural doesn't exist.
There is no 'assumption' that it does exist.

Scientists simply follow the evidence.

There is (as yet) absolutely no evidence that even hints at the existence of the supernatural (or god).

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are also groups who think the world is flat and/or is only 6000 yrs old and that someday
soon a deity will come and destroy the place and all but a few 'faithful' worshippers who get
taken to some kind of supposedly nice afterlife (although every account of heaven I have ever
heard sounds really terrible)

There are small numbers of nutters ...[text shortened]... ing.
Generally they can just be ignored by the overwhelming majority of the rest of humanity.

There you are. Are you still not ready to answer my question? If you have forgotten, the question is, what is the difference between man and beast that gives man the right to enslave and/or kill animals but not men?

As for the VEHMT organization, this is only a taste of what happens whith a worldview that runs contrary to the notion that all men should be considered special amongst all creation as made in the image of God. For you see, once man is seen as made in the image of God, killing and enslaving him becasue ideologically problematic. For example, during the reign of terror of the Catholic church, they forbade people to read the word of God in fear people would learn the truth. Then came Martin Luther.......

As it stands today, people who see us as glorified animals can treat us as such. Our worth is then cheapened thus reducing the worth of our general freedoms including that to the freedom of life and liberty. At that point, we can glibly be herded like cattle, or worse, without a hint of remorse.

Originally posted by whodey
There you are. Are you still not ready to answer my question? If you have forgotten, the question is, what is the difference between man and beast that gives man the right to enslave and/or kill animals but not men?

As for the VEHMT organization, this is only a taste of what happens whith a worldview that runs contrary to the notion that all men should b ...[text shortened]... berty. At that point, we can glibly be herded like cattle, or worse, without a hint of remorse.

Ah I see what your line of argument is. You think that it's OK for Christians to eat meat but, for you, non-Christians who eat meat - because they cannot possibly recognize "the freedom of life and liberty" - might as well be eating mentally retarded children, because - to non-Christians - there is no difference. Got it.

Originally posted by FMF
Ah I see what your line of argument is. You think that it's OK for Christians to eat meat but, for you, non-Christians who eat meat - because they cannot possibly recognize "the freedom of life and liberty" - might as well be eating mentally retarded children, because - to non-Christians - there is no difference. Got it.

For the sake of argument, if an animal has a higher IQ than a human being, does that increase the worth of the animal over the human in question?

Originally posted by whodey
For the sake of argument, if an animal has a higher IQ than a human being, does that increase the worth of the animal over the human in question?

For the sake of what kind of argument, whodey? We get it. You don't eat mentally disabled children because of a four word phrase in a book you subscribe to. And you don't understand why non-Christians don't just go ahead eat mentally disabled children. You have not positioned yourself well to claim you understand the worth of the humans over animals. I think you are just trying too hard to be funny.

Originally posted by FMF
For the sake of what kind of argument, whodey? We get it. You don't eat mentally disabled children because of a four word phrase in a book you subscribe to. And you don't understand why non-Christians don't just go ahead eat mentally disabled children. You have not positioned yourself well to claim you understand the worth of the humans over animals. I think you are just trying too hard to be funny.

Reframing my questions to try and make them sound absurd is not a response to my question FMF.

Whatever. I just wonder if googleman ever comes back to defend his position. My guess is no. Either that or he will play word games like yourself.

Originally posted by whodey
For the sake of argument, if an animal has a higher IQ than a human being, does that increase the worth of the animal over the human in question?

Anyone like to take a stab? Anyone?

Originally posted by humy
“...You mean you really can't see that you are assuming nothing supernatural exists . ...”

Generally, in the absence of evidence for X existing, it is not so much an 'assumption' to assume X does not exist but a reasonable absence of an assumption that X exists. Therefore, in the absence of evidence for X existing, your default assumption should be that it d ssumptions you or I make about reality and doesn't care about our assumptions.

I did not admit I made any assumptions when I referred to so-called assumptions. They are so-called assumptions because you call them that.
You are the one that calls truth and fact assumptions and assumptions truth and fact. You got it backwards.

Originally posted by whodey
Reframing my questions to try and make them sound absurd is not a response to my question FMF.

Pointing out that your presumptions and questions are absurd are a completely legitimate response to them, whodey. Almost every time you use the expression "For the sake of argument..." to start a post, it indicates that you are pointedly ignoring or sidestepping the point/response you claim to be replying to, and it usually indicates that you are about to launch yet another absurd hypothetical or tortured analogy.