From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 17th, 2002 12:42 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Christianity

Quite a good essay but it attacks monotheism rather than Christianity. Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate, so most of your arguments (God doesn't necessarily have emotions, isn't necessarily good etc) break down. Jesus certainly had emotions, is generally acknowledged to have been a good man.

	From: vexen	Date: March 4th, 2003 05:23 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: Christianity

Unfortunately it's a moot point, because the existence of Jesus is doubted.

Secondly, if Jesus *did* exist, the belief that he was the son of a god is probably a mistake. Just because people believe it, doesn't make it true.

Also, why would a god have human emotions? Why wouldn't it have the emotions of a cow, or an alien, etc? Saying it has human emotions is a result of our ego, of us not being able to see the bigger universal picture. It's an "error of homocentricity":
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homocentricity.html

From: (Anonymous)	Date: March 7th, 2003 06:14 am (UTC)		(Link)
Re: Christianity

It amazes me how many people are incapable of understanding the point of the Empirical method. I wonder if you have heard of a disturbing trend in my home country called Scientific Creationism (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). It's a last ditch attempt by the Christians to incorporate scientific facts that they can no longer ignore into the events of the Bible (a process only possible by eliminating those branches of science that are wholly incompatible with the Bible, such as Geology and Biology). The whole concept would be quite humorous except for the fact that these loons want this crap taught in Science classes alongside true Science. My guess is they're hoping that Science will be reduced to a 5 minute class taught thusly "Well, God made everything and all other thought in the matter is unprovable conjecture. Now take a 4 minute break and report to Bible study". The scariest part is that there seems to be a lot of support by parents (none by the teachers of course) for this to happen.... faced with this school system, I guess I'll have to expatriate myself

	From: vexen	Date: July 10th, 2003 04:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: Christianity

It's also called (more modernly and more subtly) "Intelligent Design".

From: (Anonymous)	Date: February 9th, 2005 03:09 am (UTC)		(Link)
Re: Christianity

i just want to point out that their is no such thing as true "Atheism". i say this because if you claim to be an atheist you are really just saying you don't like the idea that there maybe a God who has control over you and instead you want to be in control of yourself so truly you are saying you are God. But how can you be god when you don't know all, or have all power. You are just an ordinary person who can only improve on what God has allowed you to know you can't even create. the other thing i want to say is that it takes a lot more faith for you to be an atheist than for me to be a Christian because even after you state you believe in no god you still have to wrestle with how did i get here, what is the point of my life, and what is right or wrong. while i now have the answers to those questions in the Bible (God's inspired word)
my prayers are with you while you are trying to decide b/w the 1 true God and yourself.

	From: vexen	Date: February 10th, 2005 08:06 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: Christianity

An "atheist" is a person without a belief in God. This includes anyone whose belief system or worldview does not contain a god. So, although extreme solipsists who think themselves are God are in affect God's themselves, most atheists are not extreme solipsists.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/solipsism.html

Atheists are not "really just saying" we don't the "the idea" of things having control over us. Lots of people and things have control over us, it's a fact of life.

Some atheists are atheists because they've never been taught or told about Gods, some are atheists because they think God is a silly theory or is an illogical belief; i.e., it doesn't seem necessary in their world-view.

Everyone has to wrestle with the big questions in life, no matter what faith you are.

Brief introduction to Atheism & its history:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/atheism.html

From: (Anonymous)	Date: March 4th, 2003 01:10 am (UTC)		(Link)
God omniscient?

I like your arguments, and though I may be mingling thoughts from a couple of your essays, I thought I'd take the time to point out two things. One point in your essay is that an omnipotent being can obtain omniscience, but my thought is that in order to be omnipotent one would need to be omniscient by definition (one cannot exercise meaningful control over something that one has no knowledge of). Another point you made in another essay is that any omniscient being would have no free will, but I would further that to say that the creation of any omniscient being erases the free will of everyone in the universe (If an omniscient being knows that I will commit some act in the future, then I have no choice but to commit that act. To do otherwise would mean that that being is not omniscient.)

Based on this argument, it is impossible for an omniscient god to exist, and for that god to have given us free will.

Hope you'll take the time to consider my arguments, whether or not you do I'll probably continue to read your essay's, they are very refreshing

	From: vexen	Date: March 4th, 2003 05:21 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: God omniscient?

I agree that you can't be omnipotent without first being omniscient.

Try:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/goddeniesfreewill.html
which is a page saying what you've said... that the existence of an omniscient being denies free will.

List of essays on free will:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/freewill.html

From: (Anonymous)	Date: March 7th, 2003 05:53 am (UTC)		(Link)
Re: God omniscient?

yeah, I found that page on my own shortly after writing the reply (you can imagine how much of an ass I felt) ;)... Well, if I can't think originally, at least I can copy someone who does..lol

	From: vexen	Date: March 7th, 2003 09:23 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: God omniscient?

Imagine how I felt when I uncovered one of my arguments in a book (this has happened many times -- it is hard to do anything original). In this case the text was some 3000 years old. I was quite amazed :-) It was Epicurus (341-270bce) on the Problem of Evil and how it casts doubt on the existence of a God.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: July 10th, 2003 08:54 am (UTC)		(Link)
illogical sense

"There is no proof that the Universe was created by a god, therefore the assumption that the most-powerful-being in existence is as powerful as omnipotence is an assumption"

These are your comments the nature of which extend through your essay. If you stood back to try and assess what you were writing, you probabaly would have realised that your argument is illogical. You use the very beliefs and system of beliefs that you deny, in order to make your own argument.

EG> How do you know that there is no proof that the universe was created? Just cause you haven't come across it, or perhaps appreciated it does mean that there is no proof. For you to make such a statement, you have to be all knowing which you are not.

I would be happy to deal with each and every single point that you make but perhaps you would not want this or i might simply be wasting my time. You can email me on tasmin_minsat@yahoo.com if you want this discussion.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: July 10th, 2003 09:27 am (UTC)		(Link)
Re: illogical sense

Just in passing, I would add one other point which is that the if your arguing about proof, then the onus is upon you to disprove the existence of God, not the other way round. It would help to establish common ground if you state what you consider to be valid proof. For instance, if you belive in evolution (arguably the main argument used as an alternative by atheist to disprove the existence of God) what standard of proof have you accepted to belive in the theory.

	From: vexen	Date: July 10th, 2003 04:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: illogical sense

There are self-contradictory elements in the white light idea of "God", therefore it is not true.

But:

The existence of God is superfluous to the explanation of the Universe AND it is the duty of people who propose the existence of an (invisible!) being to prove it, not the duty of others to disprove it, otherwise we'd spend all our times disproving other crackpot beliefs all day.

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God!!!!! Only American fundamentalists would think that! Most atheists I know don't believe in God because they weren't brought up to believe in God (I'm in the UK, from the sounds of it you're American), and because they don't see the point, so it's pretty mute for them to try and disprove something that they don't take seriously in the first place. (I on the other hand actively enjoy such debates)

For a theory to be proven (for me: this is not a technical definition I'm making) there has to be some evidence of the conclusion, *or*, a logical argument that supports the conclusion.

With God, there is no evidence and there is no logical argument.

	From: vexen	Date: July 10th, 2003 04:33 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: illogical sense

You are free to point out an example of something that is illogical, but, I do not believe that your assertion that the text is illogical is true. The assumptions stated on the page are assumptions that would need to be proven by a theist in addition to proving that a God exists at all.

What belief systems are you saying I "use", and "deny"? I am merely pointing out assumptions, not confirming or denying much at all.

When I say "there is no proof" I could not mean that "there will never be proof", merely that there is no proof now. I do not claim to be omniscient. History is on my side, though, when I say that the existence of God has had no historical proof that has held. If there was proof, we'd all be theists.

Don't forget, however, that the proof of a Creator does not mean we can assume that any particular religion is true partially or at all in any respect other than that there is a Creator. Could be an evil, unconscious creator for all we would know.

I don't advise going against every single point at once, but it would be nice if you'd give an example (say, one particular point) of what is "illogical". Normally, starting at one point a debate gradually expands to cover all others.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: September 26th, 2003 10:15 am (UTC)		(Link)
Re: illogical sense

"Our emotions are a result of our brain chemistry and hormones (we know this because if we alter these chemicals, our emotions alter accordingly)."

This is an example of the illogical sense. Have you altered chemicals in the brain and observed teh al;terations in emotions afterwards.. has anybody.. how do you know. the fact is that you don't know but you make the assumption because it is reasonable to do so in a society which accepts science as fact and often without question nad certainly without firsthand knowledge. The illogical part is that you use this to make your argument to deny people the right to make a similar assumption about the existence of GOD.

The evidence for the existence of GOD and his nature is far greater than what you may find in any laboratory determining the ,ost advanced aspects of science.

Lets put things into a bit of perspective.

Assuming that age of the earth is accepted as being over 4 Billion Years (4,000,000,000). Consider that this 4 Billion years is a period of 1 day. A man who lives to be a thousand years old, in the conext of the 1 day, would have spent 0.0216 of a second on the face of the earth.

Now if something like that happened in a normal day, i.e. existed for a period of 0.0216 seconds, we would not say that it had the opportunity to learn everything about itself let alone it's surroundings, or that it knew what preceded it or what was to follow it and so on... The point of this is that we spend so little time on earth in the context of things, we KNOW nothing. Mankind is keen to follow speculation and conjecture. His arrogance pushes him to make bold statements which has no right to make.

Knowledge = Power and we have very little of either.

I feel sorry for the heart that has no belief in GOD. I feel sorry for he who denies his creator. Deaf Dumb and Blind.

	From: vexen	Date: September 26th, 2003 01:15 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: illogical sense

1. Chemicals and emotions.

Here are some drugs that have precisely the affect that you think doesn't exist:

Anti-depressants, histomines, anti-psychotic drugs, many standard medications, valium, many other drugs. The medical world and psychiatry relies on the fact that drugs change emotions.

Also:

Neuroscience gives us detailed information over which neurotransmitters in the brain stimulate which emotions. Oxytocin, adrenaline, etc. Removing neurotransmitters prevents people from feeling whole sets of emotions.

Also, brain damage changes peoples' personalities and emotional structure.

My "assumption" (it was an "assertion", not an "assumption" by the way) has behind it rather a lot of science and evidence, not least including medical science, psychology, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psychiatry and human biology.

	From: vexen	Date: September 26th, 2003 01:20 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: illogical sense

Many of these drugs have known, tested and demonstratable affects on ECG scan results, on chemicals associated with emotions and a direct visible affect on the emotions of the patient.

Also, chemical and hormonal imbalances have direct affects on peoples' character and emotions, because the chemicals and hormones are the CAUSE of peoples' character and emotions.

	From: vexen	Date: September 26th, 2003 01:18 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	God of the gaps

2. What is this evidence for God that you allude to?

3. Yes, we have an endless amount to learn. It seems that the more we learn, the less scope and need there is for a God. God no longer pushes the planets round, creates life, makes thunder and lightening, makes Earthquakes... the more science we know, the less there seems to be room for a God. We have a "God of the gaps", an "unknown" where some people merely place all the unkowns and say "It's because of God!". God is shrinking, and without direct evidence, the unknowns of the world are very likely to be results of natural law, not of a conscious creator.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 16th, 2003 07:32 am (UTC)		(Link)
Re: God of the gaps but really this is still illogical

1
Sorry your missing the point. You are wrong.

Are you telling me that things like love hate etc are chemical reactions, balances or inbalances??. If you are you not making sense.

When you are being so scientfic then stick to your rules. e.g you can not say for instance that a drug such as antidepressants caused a particular result. All you can say is that afer the drug was consumed, you noticed a particular affect. You can not make the link between chemicals and behaviour in the manner in which you are attempting. That would mean, and if it were true, that every occassion that we took a particular tablet, we could expect a particular result. This as you well know, does not happen. Often patients complain of no effect and no change at all. Miost doctors, and I know a few, would accept that medication is on the basis of trial and error.

What your saying is a bit like saying a litre of petrol drove me 30 miles down the road. I mean petrol is important for car but theres this small thing called an engine, or even wheels, perhap the starter motor and so on, the absence of any one will make the 30 mile journey impossible but the inclusion of one item on it's own does not account for the end result being the 30 mile journey.

SO your still no further in making your assumptions. You can not make the links that you like cause frankly you just don't know. You do not have the knowledge so lets not pretend that we do. You liek teh rest of them follow conjecture so why dont you just be up front and say it.