View previous topic | View next topic

Barking mad

Page 1 of 5
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Peregrine Arkwright
605182.  Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:04 am Reply with quote

Legal case against God dismissed


A US judge has thrown out a case against God, ruling that because the defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served. The suit was launched by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, who said he might appeal against the ruling.

He sought a permanent injunction to prevent the "death, destruction and terrorisation" caused by God. Judge Marlon Polk said in his ruling that a plaintiff must have access to the defendant for a case to proceed.

"Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice," Judge Polk wrote in his ruling.

Mr Chambers cannot refile the suit but may appeal.

Mr Chambers sued God last year. He said God had threatened him and the people of Nebraska and had inflicted "widespread death, destruction and terrorisation of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants".

He said he would carefully consider Judge Polk's ruling before deciding whether to appeal.

The court, Mr Chambers said, had acknowledged the existence of God and "a consequence of that acknowledgement is a recognition of God's omniscience". "Since God knows everything," he reasoned, "God has notice of this lawsuit."

Mr Chambers, a state senator for 38 years, said he filed the suit to make the point that "anyone can sue anyone else, even God".

 
Pyriform
605191.  Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:23 am Reply with quote

I thought God's address was 'Everywhere'.

 
orablu
605195.  Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:31 am Reply with quote

Quote:
The court, Mr Chambers said, had acknowledged the existence of God and "a consequence of that acknowledgement is a recognition of God's omniscience". "Since God knows everything," he reasoned, "God has notice of this lawsuit."


there is so much in those two sentences that pisses me off, annoys, and frustrates me beyond reason, that i'm not even going to begin explaining. it's stupid and unreasonable to let something like that get to me, but i can't help it.

just one, then: you can't actually acknowledge God's exsistence any more than you can acknowledge the existence of pixies, dragons and magic. and even if this is acknowledged, and you reason (without any real arguments for the conclusion, anyway!) that that means that God is omniscient, you will, by the same reasoning, have to conclude that God is 'perfection', and can therefore not be accused of willingly causing harm and distruction upon others, because that would be malicious, and maliciousness would mean that he is not perfect. you can also not reason, then, that God unconsciously bestowed harm upon others, because God is omniscient. therefore, god did not harm anyone.
(again; this reasoning is based on the same pattern the guy used. it does not mean i think that way, it would just disprove his theory through the use of his own tools. i myself am an atheist, and think all "proofs" of god are idiotic)

i can go on for hours on this, but i'm just not going to do that.

 
CB27
605260.  Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:27 pm Reply with quote

This story is not new, but seems to be doing the rounds again today that it appeared again on the BBC website, though the date is from last year.

 
Curious Danny
605293.  Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:45 pm Reply with quote

I wonder what he would have said when he took the oath

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you ... er?

 
RLDavies
605457.  Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:12 am Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
I wonder what he would have said when he took the oath

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you ... er?


In an Egyptian myth, at the trial between Horus and Set all the various gods had to give evidence in court. They all took the standard oath to tell the truth, "I swear by Ra". Then it was Ra's turn, and he said, "I swear by Me."

 
djgordy
605496.  Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:09 am Reply with quote

orablu wrote:
Quote:
The court, Mr Chambers said, had acknowledged the existence of God and "a consequence of that acknowledgement is a recognition of God's omniscience". "Since God knows everything," he reasoned, "God has notice of this lawsuit."


there is so much in those two sentences that pisses me off, annoys, and frustrates me beyond reason, that i'm not even going to begin explaining. it's stupid and unreasonable to let something like that get to me, but i can't help it.

just one, then: you can't actually acknowledge God's exsistence any more than you can acknowledge the existence of pixies, dragons and magic.


Ah, but the oath sworn in some American courts at least does acknowledge the existence of God. In Pennsylvania, for example the oath is:

"You [and each of you] do swear by Almighty God, the Searcher of all hearts, that the evidence you shall give this court [and Jury] in this issue now being tried shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and as you shall answer to God on the last great day."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06222/712484-85.stm

The link provides a nice discussion on the alternatives open to atheists and others who cannot or might be unwilling to take the oath.


"

 
orablu
605507.  Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:51 am Reply with quote

ah, true, completely forgot about that...

 
Arcane
605508.  Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:52 am Reply with quote

Mr Chambers, hoard of locusts and Horsemen of the Apocalypse heading your way.

 
Neotenic
605543.  Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:27 am Reply with quote

Quote:
This story is not new, but seems to be doing the rounds again today that it appeared again on the BBC website, though the date is from last year.


Indeed it isn't.

here is our original coverage of the case, all the way back in September 2007. Sadly, the link I found to the court submissions by Chambers is now defunct.

The name 'Richard Kopf' is still makin me laugh, though.

 
Dr. Know
605548.  Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:50 am Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
I wonder what he would have said when he took the oath

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you ... er?


That's a good point. I wonder if God prays to a giant space monkey that controls the universe.

 
Efros
605580.  Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:17 pm Reply with quote



Spaghetti and meatballs please, no space monkeys.

 
Ion Zone
605630.  Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:39 pm Reply with quote

That's funny, I thought it was you lot who employed the giant monkeys to weave questionable logic into straw doll arguments that get re-used for hundreds of years. Yep, starting to smell pretty funky in there.

Who was it again who said that outright mockery is the last refuge of a poor argument?

 
Dr. Know
605634.  Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:48 pm Reply with quote

pffft, whoever said that was a loser.

 
Alfred E Neuman
605759.  Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:38 am Reply with quote

orablu wrote:
i can go on for hours on this, but i'm just not going to do that.


Thank you.

 

Page 1 of 5
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group