On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 3 Aug., 22:08, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 11:31:01 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> > > On 3 Aug., 14:32, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:59:26 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> > > > > On 3 Aug., 13:49, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:59:14 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> > > > > > > LL. I don't know how the author came up with the term "new
> > > atheism,"
> > > > > > > but it is a complete misnomer and shows he doesn't have a clue
> as
> > > to
> > > > > > > what atheism is. This premise has nothing to do with atheism
> and,
> > > in
> > > > > > > fact, it is a ridiculous term on its face. There can be no
> new or
> > > old
> > > > > > > atheism. There is only atheism and it means only one thing.
> > > Atheism
> > > > > > > never takes a position on anything but the existence of god(s).
> > > > > > Well, the problem with that is that taking a position on
> either
> > > side
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the god existence equation, effects how many other things are
> > > actually
> > > > > > perceived. So, you kind of have to take positions that are
> > > consistent
> > > > > with
> > > > > > your particular view of the existence/non-existence of god.
> Atheism
> > > > > > necessitates, as does theism, espousing certain positions that
> are
> > > > > related
> > > > > > to the view on existence of god. So, atheism actually establishes
> > > > > certain
> > > > > > positions based on its understanding of the existence of god. I
> > > think to
> > > > > > claim otherwise is just an intellectual cop-out.
> > > > > Atheism does not "necessitate" naturalism. It may motivate it and
> be
> > > > > correlated with it.
> > > > If it doesn't necessitate it, what's the alternative to naturalism
> > > that
> > > > is consistent with Atheism?
> > > Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
> > > supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
> > > values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
> > > list is endless.
> > These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to
> > atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given
> close
> > examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with Atheism.
> Why?
> > Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Aug., 22:08, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 11:31:01 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> > > > On 3 Aug., 14:32, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:59:26 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > On 3 Aug., 13:49, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:59:14 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> > > > > > > > LL. I don't know how the author came up with the term "new
> > > > atheism,"
> > > > > > > > but it is a complete misnomer and shows he doesn't have a clue
> > as
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > what atheism is. This premise has nothing to do with atheism
> > and,
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > fact, it is a ridiculous term on its face. There can be no
> > new or
> > > > old
> > > > > > > > atheism. There is only atheism and it means only one thing.
> > > > Atheism
> > > > > > > > never takes a position on anything but the existence of god(s).
> > > > > > > Well, the problem with that is that taking a position on
> > either
> > > > side
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the god existence equation, effects how many other things are
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > perceived. So, you kind of have to take positions that are
> > > > consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > your particular view of the existence/non-existence of god.
> > Atheism
> > > > > > > necessitates, as does theism, espousing certain positions that
> > are
> > > > > > related
> > > > > > > to the view on existence of god. So, atheism actually establishes
> > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > positions based on its understanding of the existence of god. I
> > > > think to
> > > > > > > claim otherwise is just an intellectual cop-out.
> > > > > > Atheism does not "necessitate" naturalism. It may motivate it and
> > be
> > > > > > correlated with it.
> > > > > If it doesn't necessitate it, what's the alternative to naturalism
> > > > that
> > > > > is consistent with Atheism?
> > > > Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
> > > > supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
> > > > values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
> > > > list is endless.
> > > These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to
> > > atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given
> > close
> > > examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with Atheism.
> > Why?
> > > Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> Why is a challenge not an answer!!!
I don't get you. He didn't ask a question. He made a statement which I
would like him to justify.
Atheism to day, and yesterday, includes not simply a disbelief in god/
s, but also all superstitious beliefs. Buddhism, Wiccans, New Agers
are just another form of baseless supernatualism which may believe in
other forms of superstition, but which are really the same as, and not
indistinguishable from other theist beliefs.
I've never known any atheists to not believe in gods but believe in
other superstitious nonsense. The only thing these beliefs have in
common is a collection of faiths based on evidenceless dogmatic
belief.
On Aug 4, 12:08 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:02:50 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
> >> On Aug 3, 8:32 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:59:26 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> >> > > On 3 Aug., 13:49, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > > > On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:59:14 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> >> > > > > LL. I don't know how the author came up with the term "new
> >> atheism,"
> >> > > > > but it is a complete misnomer and shows he doesn't have a clue as
> >> to
> >> > > > > what atheism is. This premise has nothing to do with atheism
> >> and, in
> >> > > > > fact, it is a ridiculous term on its face. There can be no new
> >> or old
> >> > > > > atheism. There is only atheism and it means only one thing.
> >> Atheism
> >> > > > > never takes a position on anything but the existence of god(s).
> >> > > > Well, the problem with that is that taking a position on either
> >> side
> >> > > of
> >> > > > the god existence equation, effects how many other things are
> >> actually
> >> > > > perceived. So, you kind of have to take positions that are
> >> consistent
> >> > > with
> >> > > > your particular view of the existence/non-existence of god. Atheism
> >> > > > necessitates, as does theism, espousing certain positions that are
> >> > > related
> >> > > > to the view on existence of god. So, atheism actually establishes
> >> > > certain
> >> > > > positions based on its understanding of the existence of god. I
> >> think to
> >> > > > claim otherwise is just an intellectual cop-out.
> >> > > Atheism does not "necessitate" naturalism. It may motivate it and be
> >> > > correlated with it.
> >> > If it doesn't necessitate it, what's the alternative to naturalism
> >> that
> >> > is consistent with Atheism?
> >> If Scientology's creation story has no God, it is an alternative to
> >> theistic creation stories. As for whether it is also an alternative to
> >> naturalism, see for yourself:
> >>http://altreligion.about.com/od/mythologicalfigures/a/xenu.htm
> > It might be an alternative to naturalism, but my question was if it was
> > consistent with Atheism. The central tenet of Atheism rests on the claim
> > that there is no god and that is based on rational basis of there being no
> > empirical evidence to the contrary.
> And here's your first mistake. There is NO central tenet of atheism despite
> some atheists idiotic claim that there is.
> Atheism is simply an identifier. A label. A way of naming people who aren't
> theists.
> > Since Atheism is empirical evidence based in its claims, it would seem to
> > me that it is inconsistent with a mythos that provides no empirical
> > evidence for its claims. So, I don't think that it can be considered
> > consistent with central methods of arriving at conclusions that Atheism
> > claims for itself. It does not meet my requested criteria. I just don't
> > think it is consistent with the nature of Atheism.
> There all of the above is wrong.
> Those who lack belief often have other superstitious beliefs. Wiccans, New
> Agers, some forms of Buddhism that believes in reincarnation, etc.
> >> I wonder whether this counts as naturalism (it could be interpreted as
> >> an alternation between big bangs and big crunches)
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution > >> ‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long
> >> period this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are
> >> mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-
> >> made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through the air,
> >> glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or
> >> later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At
> >> a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world,
> >> having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world.
> > I think that Buddhism fails for the same reason. It is simply
> > inconsistent with the basic nature of Atheism if we are to think of Atheism
> > as fundamentally empirical or rational and evidence based.
> As long as the form of Buddhism doesn't believe that Buddha is a god, it's
> atheistic and those people are atheists.
> --
> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> --Susan B. Anthony
> "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
Then Christianity explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and
then
refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
So, why is Atheism any less sane than Christianity, using your
argument?
On Aug 4, 9:36 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > <snipped>
> >> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
> >> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
> >> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
> >> list is endless.
> >> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to
> >> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given close
> >> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with Atheism.
> >> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
> > They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism,
> > rationalism, etc.
> > They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. That's all
> > atheism is. Nothing more.
> Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then
> refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
> > There are no tenets despite the bullshit flogged by a few atheists who
> > claim otherwise.
> > In order for atheism to have tenets, they would have to be something that
> > every single atheist believed.
> > The only thing that every single atheist has in common is no god beliefs.
> Well, actually there is one statement that all atheists would agree on
> "There is no god."
On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:41:44 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> On Aug 3, 4:36 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> > wrote:
> > > <snipped>
> > >> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic > > >> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral > > >> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the > > >> list is endless.
> > >> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to > > >> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given > close > > >> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with > Atheism. > > >> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
> > > They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism, > > > rationalism, etc.
> > > They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. That's > all > > > atheism is. Nothing more.
> > Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then > > refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
> LL. Have you provided support for your lack of belief in the Easter > Bunny or Santa Claus?
I certainly have good reasons for rejecting those things.
> How about for the thousands of gods that have been claimed to exist.
While one lifetime is not enough time for me to accomplish this, there are a handful that I have looked into and found reasons to dismiss them.
> Do you have support for your lack of belief in them? How is THAT > sane?
Absolutely I do on sound basis. I use sound reasoning based on actual evidence that reflects observable reality. To latch on to a belief about something being true without a reasonable justification is insane and atheists aren't the only ones guilty of this. The same can be said of many theists and in both cases it is insanity. At least I don't take the lazy Atheism way out by simply making an assertion without backing it up with a reasonable argument. That's how.
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 5:21:28 AM UTC-7, philosophy wrote:
> Then Christianity explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and > then
> refuses to provide any support for it.
Huh? Christianity within the central text, I might point out the only sacred text of any religion in the world, challenges everyone to test it in the real world to see if it is true or not. It is a direct command to do so and to try to prove it wrong. It provides evidence throughout. Now, you might have problems with the evidence presented, but it never simply makes a claim without an attempt to provide evidence. It holds reasoning in the highest esteem. You might disagree that it provides legitimate evidence and you might provide your reasons for dismissal of that evidence, but to claim that it does what Atheism does, makes a claim and then provides no infrastructure to explain anything through reason, is so wrong that I can't think of a way of being more wrong. I am utterly stunned that intelligent people would make such a foolish mistake in reasoning. Yet, I am obviously confronted with that very situation.
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 6:54:57 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:41:44 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 4:36 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: >> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> >> wrote:
>> > > <snipped>
>> > >> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic >> > >> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral >> > >> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the >> > >> list is endless.
>> > >> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts >> to >> > >> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given >> close >> > >> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with >> Atheism. >> > >> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
>> > > They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism, >> > > rationalism, etc.
>> > > They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. That's >> all >> > > atheism is. Nothing more.
>> > Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then >> > refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
>> LL. Have you provided support for your lack of belief in the Easter >> Bunny or Santa Claus?
> I certainly have good reasons for rejecting those things.
You have good reasons for rejecting the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark myths, too, but you don't.
>> How about for the thousands of gods that have been claimed to exist.
> While one lifetime is not enough time for me to accomplish this, there are > a handful that I have looked into and found reasons to dismiss them.
How peculiar... do you suppose that if you did more research you might discover that Kali or Thor really existed?
>> Do you have support for your lack of belief in them? How is THAT >> sane?
> Absolutely I do on sound basis. I use sound reasoning based on actual > evidence that reflects observable reality.
Unless, of course, a Bible story is involved, in which case you revert to abject gullibility.
> To latch on to a belief about something being true without a reasonable > justification is insane and atheists aren't the only ones guilty of this. > The same can be said of many theists and in both cases it is insanity. > At least I don't take the lazy Atheism way out by simply making an > assertion without backing it up with a reasonable argument. > That's how.
Atheism has only one argument, and it's completely reasonable. Some people claim that one or more gods actually exist - we atheists don't believe them.
Do you think that your rejection of Santa Claus is "simply making an assertion without backing is up with a resonable argument"? Or do you just note that the myth of Santa Claus contradicts your knowledge about the real world?
On Aug 4, 6:34 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trance,
> Atheism to day, and yesterday, includes not simply a disbelief in god/s,
> but also all superstitious beliefs. Buddhism, Wiccans, New Agers
> are just another form of baseless supernatualism which may believe in
> other forms of superstition, but which are really the same as, and not
> indistinguishable from other theist beliefs.
> I've never known any atheists to not believe in gods but believe in
> other superstitious nonsense. The only thing these beliefs have in
> common is a collection of faiths based on evidenceless dogmatic
> belief.
I have met an atheist who believed in astrology. Would you
characterize her position on gods as something other than atheism?
> On Aug 4, 12:08 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:02:50 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
> > >> On Aug 3, 8:32 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:59:26 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> > >> > > On 3 Aug., 13:49, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:59:14 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> > >> > > > > LL. I don't know how the author came up with the term "new
> > >> atheism,"
> > >> > > > > but it is a complete misnomer and shows he doesn't have a clue as
> > >> to
> > >> > > > > what atheism is. This premise has nothing to do with atheism
> > >> and, in
> > >> > > > > fact, it is a ridiculous term on its face. There can be no new
> > >> or old
> > >> > > > > atheism. There is only atheism and it means only one thing.
> > >> Atheism
> > >> > > > > never takes a position on anything but the existence of god(s).
> > >> > > > Well, the problem with that is that taking a position on either
> > >> side
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > > the god existence equation, effects how many other things are
> > >> actually
> > >> > > > perceived. So, you kind of have to take positions that are
> > >> consistent
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > > your particular view of the existence/non-existence of god. Atheism
> > >> > > > necessitates, as does theism, espousing certain positions that are
> > >> > > related
> > >> > > > to the view on existence of god. So, atheism actually establishes
> > >> > > certain
> > >> > > > positions based on its understanding of the existence of god. I
> > >> think to
> > >> > > > claim otherwise is just an intellectual cop-out.
> > >> > > Atheism does not "necessitate" naturalism. It may motivate it and be
> > >> > > correlated with it.
> > >> > If it doesn't necessitate it, what's the alternative to naturalism
> > >> that
> > >> > is consistent with Atheism?
> > >> If Scientology's creation story has no God, it is an alternative to
> > >> theistic creation stories. As for whether it is also an alternative to
> > >> naturalism, see for yourself:
> > >>http://altreligion.about.com/od/mythologicalfigures/a/xenu.htm
> > > It might be an alternative to naturalism, but my question was if it was
> > > consistent with Atheism. The central tenet of Atheism rests on the claim
> > > that there is no god and that is based on rational basis of there being no
> > > empirical evidence to the contrary.
> > And here's your first mistake. There is NO central tenet of atheism despite
> > some atheists idiotic claim that there is.
> > Atheism is simply an identifier. A label. A way of naming people who aren't
> > theists.
> > > Since Atheism is empirical evidence based in its claims, it would seem to
> > > me that it is inconsistent with a mythos that provides no empirical
> > > evidence for its claims. So, I don't think that it can be considered
> > > consistent with central methods of arriving at conclusions that Atheism
> > > claims for itself. It does not meet my requested criteria. I just don't
> > > think it is consistent with the nature of Atheism.
> > There all of the above is wrong.
> > Those who lack belief often have other superstitious beliefs. Wiccans, New
> > Agers, some forms of Buddhism that believes in reincarnation, etc.
> > >> I wonder whether this counts as naturalism (it could be interpreted as
> > >> an alternation between big bangs and big crunches)
> > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution > > >> ‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long
> > >> period this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are
> > >> mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-
> > >> made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through the air,
> > >> glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or
> > >> later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At
> > >> a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world,
> > >> having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world.
> > > I think that Buddhism fails for the same reason. It is simply
> > > inconsistent with the basic nature of Atheism if we are to think of Atheism
> > > as fundamentally empirical or rational and evidence based.
> > As long as the form of Buddhism doesn't believe that Buddha is a god, it's
> > atheistic and those people are atheists.
> > --
> > "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> > --Susan B. Anthony
> > "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> > fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 7:41:56 AM UTC-7, Bob T. wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 6:54:57 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:41:44 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 4:36 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: >>> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> >>> wrote:
>>> > > <snipped>
>>> > >> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic >>> > >> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral >>> > >> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the >>> > >> list is endless.
>>> > >> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts >>> to >>> > >> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when >>> given close >>> > >> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with >>> Atheism. >>> > >> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
>>> > > They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism, >>> > > rationalism, etc.
>>> > > They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. >>> That's all >>> > > atheism is. Nothing more.
>>> > Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then >>> > refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
>>> LL. Have you provided support for your lack of belief in the Easter >>> Bunny or Santa Claus?
>> I certainly have good reasons for rejecting those things.
> You have good reasons for rejecting the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark > myths, too, but you don't.
Actually, I have just watched a video on research on the flood and the fact that just about every culture has some form of mythology of the flood. Not only that, but that there is evidence of a widespread flood, though the specific details are something that the researchers didn't fully agree on. So, there is some reason to believe that a flood happened and that lends credibility to the historicity of Noah account. There is also evidence for the garden of Eden and its location in that video as described in the Old Testament. So, there is evidence of those being historical realities. If you like, I can re-watch that and give you the specific details as I have the video on my drive here.
>>> How about for the thousands of gods that have been claimed to exist.
>> While one lifetime is not enough time for me to accomplish this, there >> are a handful that I have looked into and found reasons to dismiss them.
> How peculiar... do you suppose that if you did more research you might > discover that Kali or Thor really existed?
Does anyone have any evidence to that effect? I have not seen any evidence presented, not anyone eager to do so. But I am willing to listen.
>>> Do you have support for your lack of belief in them? How is THAT >>> sane?
>> Absolutely I do on sound basis. I use sound reasoning based on actual >> evidence that reflects observable reality.
> Unless, of course, a Bible story is involved, in which case you revert to > abject gullibility.
I apply the same standards in both cases.
>> To latch on to a belief about something being true without a reasonable >> justification is insane and atheists aren't the only ones guilty of this. >> The same can be said of many theists and in both cases it is insanity. >> At least I don't take the lazy Atheism way out by simply making an >> assertion without backing it up with a reasonable argument. >> That's how.
> Atheism has only one argument, and it's completely reasonable.
What is the argument?
> Some people claim that one or more gods actually exist - we atheists > don't believe them.
Ok...how is that an argument rather than just a rejection? I think that you can come up with arguments to prove that there is a specific reason why their god cannot exist. I've done this myself and I know you can do the same.
> Do you think that your rejection of Santa Claus is "simply making an > assertion without backing is up with a resonable argument"? Or do you just > note that the myth of Santa Claus contradicts your knowledge about the real > world?
You have to take a look at the particulars. Proving that Santa exists is not so hard. We have to go to the North Pole and find his workshop. Thus the story is falsifiable. All we have to do is catch him on an actual radar during his ride at Christmas. Have we done any of that? Have we explored the north pole? Do we have ways of detecting flying objects through radar sightings? It seems that we have the means and opportunity and have explored the north pole. Any sign of Santa anywhere? Or is it that parents pretend to be that for the sake of their kids' entertainment during a holiday season? Where did the story have its origins? It seems that there are several versions of Santa Claus that are floating around where I came from he was called Dedek Mraz (Father Frost). In the United States he is referred to as Santa or St. Nick. In some European countries he is Father Christmas. There are considerable divergences in the stories as where I came from, he did not have a workshop at the North Pole at all. So, there seems to be little unanimity between different cultures as to the nature of Santa. In contrast, there is nothing but unanimity regarding the central points of Jesus, no matter what culture speaks of him. It is not the case that one culture says he was born in Bethlehem and another says he was born on the North Pole. Furthermore, even those who think he sprung from a real person who was a generous Saint If I were to say that he was the Bishop of Myra he would hardly claim the divine attribute of omniscience as the song that tells us that "He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake...he knows if you've been bad or good..." etc. As a Christian Bishop, he would know that such an attribute could only belong to god, though generosity is not. So, we know that there are serious problems with the mythology as we understand it today, which problems point out that a person such as described with the attributes ascribed to him, would contradict certain version of that story and thus be self contradictory when placed in the context of real history. QED.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
>>> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
>>> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
>>> list is endless.
>>> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to
>>> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given close
>>> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with Atheism.
>>> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
>> They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism,
>> rationalism, etc.
>> They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. That's all
>> atheism is. Nothing more.
> Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then
> refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
It doesn't even make an assertion. An atheist is just someone who isn't a
theist. That's it.
That doesn't mean that atheists don't have world views and the world views
they select aren't related to the fact that we are atheists. They are.
However, they still aren't "atheist world views".
They are atheistic world views. There's a difference.
I follow the atheistic world view of FreeThought. That is my belief system.
Not atheism.
FreeThinkers can be theists but they can't be religious theists because
Freethought stands in opposition to dogma and tradition. Any religious
theist who claimed to be a FreeThinker would be contradicting themselves.
Just like a communist or fascist couldn't claim to be a FreeThinker since
they would be in contradiction with the fundamental premise of FreeThought.
Humanism is another atheistic belief system. I'm an atheist but I don't
agree with Humanism. Humanists can also be theists and they can be
religious theists because there is no requirement in Humanism to oppose
dogma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism
On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:10:40 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> <snipped>
>> Are you going to deny that Atheism has a core of rational and critical >> thought and its child is evidential method of determining the truth of a >> thing?
> Yes. Absolutely.
So, you admit that Atheism is irrational? Why would you do that? I think you should take back your assertion.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:34 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trance,
> Atheism to day, and yesterday, includes not simply a disbelief in god/
> s, but also all superstitious beliefs. Buddhism, Wiccans, New Agers
> are just another form of baseless supernatualism which may believe in
> other forms of superstition, but which are really the same as, and not
> indistinguishable from other theist beliefs.
> I've never known any atheists to not believe in gods but believe in
> other superstitious nonsense.
Your first paragraph explains precisely *why* you have "never known any
atheists to not believe in gods but believe in other superstitious
nonsense" since you don't consider them atheists.
> The only thing these beliefs have in
> common is a collection of faiths based on evidenceless dogmatic
> belief.
Which as you well know has nothing to do with not having god beliefs which
is all that atheism is.
Anyone who isn't a theist (god believer) is an atheist (not a god believer).
Your religious atheist dogma about what atheists are required to believe
notwithstanding.
Rational atheists don't hold with such bigotry.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:19:31 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> <snipped>
>>>> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic >>>> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral >>>> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the >>>> list is endless.
>>>> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to >>>> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given close >>>> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with Atheism. >>>> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
>>> They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism, >>> rationalism, etc.
>>> They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. That's >>> all atheism is. Nothing more.
>> Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then >> refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
> It doesn't even make an assertion.
What is the following statement "There is no god". If it is not an assertion, what is it?
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:10:40 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>> Are you going to deny that Atheism has a core of rational and critical
>>> thought and its child is evidential method of determining the truth of a
>>> thing?
>> Yes. Absolutely.
> So, you admit that Atheism is irrational? Why would you do that? I think
> you should take back your assertion.
Being an atheist has nothing to do with rationality or critical thought and
it's child isn't evidential method of determining the truth.
An atheist is anyone who isn't a theist.
I was born an atheist.
I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
Where was the "rationality, critical thought or evidential method" involved
in my being an atheist?
It doesn't exist.
I'm an atheist simply because I'm not a theist.
And I simply don't believe theist claims nor have I come across any
compelling reasons to believe them so I continue to be an atheist.
The fact that I'm a FreeThinker and believe in rationality, critical
thought, and the evidential method in determining the truth, would be a
fact whether I was a non-religious theist or an atheist. The fact that I'm
an atheist only indicates that I'm *more* *likely* to adopt this philosophy
than others.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:16:48 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 7:41:56 AM UTC-7, Bob T. wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 6:54:57 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:41:44 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:
>>>> On Aug 3, 4:36 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: >>>> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>>> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> >>>> wrote:
>>>> > > <snipped>
>>>> > >> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic >>>> > >> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral >>>> > >> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... >>>> the >>>> > >> list is endless.
>>>> > >> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts >>>> to >>>> > >> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when >>>> given close >>>> > >> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with >>>> Atheism. >>>> > >> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
>>>> > > They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism, >>>> > > rationalism, etc.
>>>> > > They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. >>>> That's all >>>> > > atheism is. Nothing more.
>>>> > Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and >>>> then >>>> > refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
>>>> LL. Have you provided support for your lack of belief in the Easter >>>> Bunny or Santa Claus?
>>> I certainly have good reasons for rejecting those things.
>> You have good reasons for rejecting the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark >> myths, too, but you don't.
> Actually, I have just watched a video on research on the flood and the > fact that just about every culture has some form of mythology of the flood.
Just about every human culture arose in a river valley - coincidence? I think not.
> Not only that, but that there is evidence of a widespread flood, though > the specific details are something that the researchers didn't fully agree > on. So, there is some reason to believe that a flood happened and that > lends credibility to the historicity of Noah account. There is also > evidence for the garden of Eden and its location in that video as described > in the Old Testament. So, there is evidence of those being historical > realities. If you like, I can re-watch that and give you the specific > details as I have the video on my drive here.
I have a video that provides evidence that Gollum stole the One Ring from Frodo and fell into Mount Doom. In other words, anybody can make a video that makes claims. I bet you can find Muslim videos that "prove" stories about Mohammed and Allah, too!
>>>> How about for the thousands of gods that have been claimed to exist.
>>> While one lifetime is not enough time for me to accomplish this, there >>> are a handful that I have looked into and found reasons to dismiss them.
>> How peculiar... do you suppose that if you did more research you might >> discover that Kali or Thor really existed?
> Does anyone have any evidence to that effect? I have not seen any > evidence presented, not anyone eager to do so. But I am willing to listen.
That's where we differ - I already know that Thor and Kali are mythical, I do not need to study the "evidence".
>>>> Do you have support for your lack of belief in them? How is THAT >>>> sane?
>>> Absolutely I do on sound basis. I use sound reasoning based on actual >>> evidence that reflects observable reality.
>> Unless, of course, a Bible story is involved, in which case you revert to >> abject gullibility.
> I apply the same standards in both cases.
Well, I guess if your mind is so open that you think Thor might really exist, it's not suprising that you believe Noah's Flood might be a historical event.
>>> To latch on to a belief about something being true without a reasonable >>> justification is insane and atheists aren't the only ones guilty of this. >>> The same can be said of many theists and in both cases it is insanity. >>> At least I don't take the lazy Atheism way out by simply making an >>> assertion without backing it up with a reasonable argument. >>> That's how.
>> Atheism has only one argument, and it's completely reasonable.
> What is the argument?
>> Some people claim that one or more gods actually exist - we atheists >> don't believe them.
> Ok...how is that an argument rather than just a rejection? I think that > you can come up with arguments to prove that there is a specific reason > why their god cannot exist. I've done this myself and I know you can do the > same.
Sure, and I have come up with several convincing arguments that show why Jehovah as described in the Old Testament is clearly a myth. Coming up with such arguments to disprove every deity invented by some religion or another would be a full-time job.
>> Do you think that your rejection of Santa Claus is "simply making an >> assertion without backing is up with a resonable argument"? Or do you just >> note that the myth of Santa Claus contradicts your knowledge about the real >> world?
> You have to take a look at the particulars. Proving that Santa > exists is not so hard. We have to go to the North Pole and find his > workshop. Thus the story is falsifiable. All we have to do is catch him on > an actual radar during his ride at Christmas. Have we done any of that? > Have we explored the north pole? Do we have ways of detecting flying > objects through radar sightings? It seems that we have the means and > opportunity and have explored the north pole. Any sign of Santa anywhere? > Or is it that parents pretend to be that for the sake of their kids' > entertainment during a holiday season? Where did the story have its > origins? It seems that there are several versions of Santa Claus that are > floating around where I came from he was called Dedek Mraz (Father Frost). > In the United States he is referred to as Santa or St. Nick. In some > European countries he is Father Christmas. There are considerable > divergences in the stories as where I came from, he did not have a workshop > at the North Pole at all. So, there seems to be little unanimity between > different cultures as to the nature of Santa. In contrast, there is nothing > but unanimity regarding the central points of Jesus, no matter what culture > speaks of him. It is not the case that one culture says he was born in > Bethlehem and another says he was born on the North Pole. Furthermore, even > those who think he sprung from a real person who was a generous Saint If I > were to say that he was the Bishop of Myra he would hardly claim the divine > attribute of omniscience as the song that tells us that "He knows when you > are sleeping, he knows when you're awake...he knows if you've been bad or > good..." etc. As a Christian Bishop, he would know that such an attribute > could only belong to god, though generosity is not. So, we know that there > are serious problems with the mythology as we understand it today, which > problems point out that a person such as described with the attributes > ascribed to him, would contradict certain version of that story and thus be > self contradictory when placed in the context of real history. QED.
We also know there are serious problems with Old Testament mythology, but some people refuse to admit it.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:19:31 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>wrote:
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
>>>>> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
>>>>> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
>>>>> list is endless.
>>>>> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to
>>>>> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given close
>>>>> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with Atheism.
>>>>> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
>>>> They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism,
>>>> rationalism, etc.
>>>> They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. That's
>>>> all atheism is. Nothing more.
>>> Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then
>>> refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
>> It doesn't even make an assertion.
> What is the following statement "There is no god". If it is not an
> assertion, what is it?
Rational atheists make no such assertion.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:35:15 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:10:40 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>wrote:
>>> <snipped>
>>>> Are you going to deny that Atheism has a core of rational and critical >>>> thought and its child is evidential method of determining the truth of a >>>> thing?
>>> Yes. Absolutely.
>> So, you admit that Atheism is irrational? Why would you do that? I >> think you should take back your assertion.
> Being an atheist has nothing to do with rationality or critical thought > and it's child isn't evidential method of determining the truth.
That's the trouble. You are admitting way too much here. If atheism has nothing to do with rationality then it is clearly not rational. I think you should take all this back. If atheism has no basis in rational thought, rational people should not adopt it. I don't think that this is something you are trying to prove and promote. You can't possibly be trying to prove that there is no good reason to become an atheist.
> An atheist is anyone who isn't a theist.
Yes. I get that.
> I was born an atheist.
I was born a human being. :)
> I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
I actually was then moved away from it, but only later in life did I come to a realization, on my own, that no amount of indoctrination could make me a Christian. I continue to hold that view.
> Where was the "rationality, critical thought or evidential method" > involved in my being an atheist?
Wow! I am just sorry that you sound more and more like you have a view that thinks of reason as something that cripples the mind.
> It doesn't exist.
Yet you are using reason to come to that conclusion. That's utterly self contradictory when you claim that reason plays no role in all of that.
> I'm an atheist simply because I'm not a theist.
No, that is not correct. You are an atheist because you are neither an agnostic nor a theist. You seem unaware of a third alternative which leads me to believe your previous claims that you have little practice in careful thinking. But really! To make such outrageous claims that Atheism is utterly irrational and then glue yourself to that view then think that you can be rational in doing it...is .... you need to take that back. I have no desire to have you make yourself look like a fool. Please...please...please take it back. Think of your reputation.
I am deeply hurt by your statements because it hurts you.
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 7:35 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:02:50 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > On Aug 3, 8:32 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:59:26 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > On 3 Aug., 13:49, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:59:14 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> > > > > > > > LL. I don't know how the author came up with the term "new
> > > > atheism,"
> > > > > > > > but it is a complete misnomer and shows he doesn't have a clue
> > as
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > what atheism is. This premise has nothing to do with atheism
> > and,
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > fact, it is a ridiculous term on its face. There can be no
> > new or
> > > > old
> > > > > > > > atheism. There is only atheism and it means only one thing.
> > > > Atheism
> > > > > > > > never takes a position on anything but the existence of
> > god(s).
> > > > > > > Well, the problem with that is that taking a position on
> > either
> > > > side
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the god existence equation, effects how many other things are
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > perceived. So, you kind of have to take positions that are
> > > > consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > your particular view of the existence/non-existence of god.
> > Atheism
> > > > > > > necessitates, as does theism, espousing certain positions that
> > are
> > > > > > related
> > > > > > > to the view on existence of god. So, atheism actually
> > establishes
> > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > positions based on its understanding of the existence of god. I
> > > > think to
> > > > > > > claim otherwise is just an intellectual cop-out.
> > > > > > Atheism does not "necessitate" naturalism. It may motivate it and
> > be
> > > > > > correlated with it.
> > > > > If it doesn't necessitate it, what's the alternative to naturalism
> > > > that
> > > > > is consistent with Atheism?
> > > > If Scientology's creation story has no God, it is an alternative to
> > > > theistic creation stories. As for whether it is also an alternative to
> > > > naturalism, see for yourself:
> > > >http://altreligion.about.com/od/mythologicalfigures/a/xenu.htm
> > > It might be an alternative to naturalism, but my question was if it
> > was
> > > consistent with Atheism. The central tenet of Atheism rests on the claim
> > > that there is no god and that is based on rational basis of there being
> > no
> > > empirical evidence to the contrary. Since Atheism is empirical evidence
> > > based in its claims, it would seem to me that it is inconsistent with a
> > > mythos that provides no empirical evidence for its claims. So, I don't
> > > think that it can be considered consistent with central methods of
> > arriving
> > > at conclusions that Atheism claims for itself. It does not meet my
> > > requested criteria. I just don't think it is consistent with the nature
> > of
> > > Atheism.
> > > > I wonder whether this counts as naturalism (it could be interpreted as
> > > > an alternation between big bangs and big crunches)
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution > > > > ‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long
> > > > period this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are
> > > > mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-
> > > > made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through the air,
> > > > glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or
> > > > later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At
> > > > a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world,
> > > > having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world.
> > > I think that Buddhism fails for the same reason. It is simply
> > inconsistent
> > > with the basic nature of Atheism if we are to think of Atheism as
> > > fundamentally empirical or rational and evidence based.
> > \
> > Observer
> > We are called atheists, the meaning of which differs in the minds of
> > men and women according to their convictions there about . The label
> > makes little difference as does the meaning attached there to . We are
> Let's see if you are able to respond to a question with a simple yes or
> no.
> Do you think that there is no empirical evidence available that Scientology
> has any basis in history?
Observer
Responding to such a question has no bearing on the dumb ass ideas set
forth in christian mythology nor the piece I wrote on atheism.
Are you altogether unable to stay on topic?
> Yes or No?
No
Albeit a brief history of beliefs formulated by a of pulp fiction
writer of dubious skills.
[quote]
Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L.
Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), starting in 1952, as a successor to his
earlier self-help system, Dianetics.[4] Hubbard characterized
Scientology as a religion, and in 1953 incorporated the Church of
Scientology in Camden, New Jersey.[5][6]
The one thing that would ever shock you would be the learning of and
the results necessitated by the application of reason, logic,
scientific method, the produce there of and critical thinking.
But an uneducated oaf who will not permit him/her self to learn these
tools and apply them conjunctively is in addition the embodiment of
stupidity
Are there no adult schools in your neck of the woods.? Or are your
propensities to stupidity just to overwhelming to even try.
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:41:44 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 4:36 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > <snipped>
> > > >> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
> > > >> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
> > > >> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
> > > >> list is endless.
> > > >> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts to
> > > >> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when given
> > close
> > > >> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with
> > Atheism.
> > > >> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
> > > > They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism,
> > > > rationalism, etc.
> > > > They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs. That's
> > all
> > > > atheism is. Nothing more.
> > > Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then
> > > refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
> > LL. Have you provided support for your lack of belief in the Easter
> > Bunny or Santa Claus?
> I certainly have good reasons for rejecting those things.
> > How about for the thousands of gods that have been claimed to exist.
> While one lifetime is not enough time for me to accomplish this, there are
> a handful that I have looked into and found reasons to dismiss them.
And what of your belief in the god thing peculiar only to christian
ideologues , concocted by such , (superstitious ideologues) in a
compilation of myths, folk lore and fables ( the so-called "bible")
the veracity of which has never been and can never be substantiated.
> > Do you have support for your lack of belief in them? How is THAT
> > sane?
> Absolutely I do on sound basis. I use sound reasoning based on actual
> evidence that reflects observable reality. To latch on to a belief about
> something being true without a reasonable justification is insane and
> atheists aren't the only ones guilty of this.
Observer
Precisely , and I submit that the belief in the nonsense and
meaninglessness of christianity are not supportable when logic,
reason ,scientific method, the produce thereof and critical thinking
are brought to bear upon the objects thereof.
Were this not the case then some christian some where would be able to
do so.
Answer my challenge
I challenge you to provide the following in accordance with logic,
reason, scientific
method, the produce there of,and the rules of critical thought ,
a case for the existence of the god thing , peculiar to only
to christian ideologues, and any act ever committed in or on the
universe by such,
And then of course it will be necessary to establish, equally, the
veracity of the the
myths/ folk lore, within which such were concocted. (the bible)
The same can be said of many
> theists and in both cases it is insanity.
> At least I don't take the lazy Atheism way out by simply making an
> assertion without backing it up with a reasonable argument.
> That's how.
Observer
In your fatuousness you ignore the tools of the cognoscente when such
conflict with your cognitive biases .
Further you fail to understand that the burden of proof is yours, not
ours.
[quote]
The philosophical burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an
epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
The entirety of your arguments and indeed all arguments made by others
for the superstitious nonsense of christianity are boil down to the
following classification.
[quote]
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or
"appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence
to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a
proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is
"generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false
dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is
insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to
prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor
does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two
(true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3)
unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the
first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used
to shift the burden of proof.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one
can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not
exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a
hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and
Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism,
wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be
upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's
proponent. See also Occam's razor (assume simplicity over complexity).
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 7:41:56 AM UTC-7, Bob T. wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 4, 2012 6:54:57 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:41:44 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> >>> On Aug 3, 4:36 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:19:56 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> >>> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > > <snipped>
> >>> > >> Atheistic Cartesian dualism, various forms of atheistic
> >>> > >> supernaturalism, atheism combined with belief in objective moral
> >>> > >> values, atheism combined with realism about abstract objects... the
> >>> > >> list is endless.
> >>> > >> These are examples of illegitimate borrowing and attaching parts
> >>> to
> >>> > >> atheism that are not an natural outgrowth of it. As such, when
> >>> given close
> >>> > >> examination, they are found to be inconsistent and at odds with
> >>> Atheism.
> >>> > >> Thus they do not provide an answer to my challenge.
> >>> > > They are inconsistent and at odds with materialism, naturalism,
> >>> > > rationalism, etc.
> >>> > > They are perfectly consistent with not having any god beliefs.
> >>> That's all
> >>> > > atheism is. Nothing more.
> >>> > Then Atheism explains nothing. It only makes an assertion and then
> >>> > refuses to provide any support for it. How is that even sane?
> >>> LL. Have you provided support for your lack of belief in the Easter
> >>> Bunny or Santa Claus?
> >> I certainly have good reasons for rejecting those things.
> > You have good reasons for rejecting the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark
> > myths, too, but you don't.
> Actually, I have just watched a video on research on the flood and the
> fact that just about every culture has some form of mythology of the flood.
> Not only that, but that there is evidence of a widespread flood, though the
> specific details are something that the researchers didn't fully agree on.
> So, there is some reason to believe that a flood happened and that lends
> credibility to the historicity of Noah account.
Observer
Floods were a set of actual events and many of them were
catastrophic , such , however in no way lends credence to the, dumb
ass story of Noah.
There is also evidence for
> the garden of Eden and its location in that video as described in the Old
> Testament. So, there is evidence of those being historical realities
Observer
It is noted that you just make an assertion and do not back it up with
and use of logic, reason, , scientific method , the produce thereof ,
or critical thinking.
Oh, I know that you have no grasp of what the tools of the cognoscenti
are or why they are important but ignorance is no excuse.
You make unsupportable and rather stupid claims nothing more.
> you like, I can re-watch that and give you the specific details as I have
> the video on my drive here.
> >>> How about for the thousands of gods that have been claimed to exist.
> >> While one lifetime is not enough time for me to accomplish this, there
> >> are a handful that I have looked into and found reasons to dismiss them.
> > How peculiar... do you suppose that if you did more research you might
> > discover that Kali or Thor really existed?
> Does anyone have any evidence to that effect? I have not seen any
> evidence presented, not anyone eager to do so. But I am willing to listen.
> >>> Do you have support for your lack of belief in them? How is THAT
> >>> sane?
> >> Absolutely I do on sound basis. I use sound reasoning based on actual
> >> evidence that reflects observable reality.
> > Unless, of course, a Bible story is involved, in which case you revert to
> > abject gullibility.
> I apply the same standards in both cases.
It is precisely your lack of any consistent standard as to how to
decide what is and is not probable , meaningful or meaningless that
makes your posts into so much gibberish.
Damn son,. at least try to educate your self . Your complacency in
being told WHAT to think has atriphied your abilities as to HOW to
think. ( that is if you ever had any such skills)
> >> To latch on to a belief about something being true without a reasonable
> >> justification is insane and atheists aren't the only ones guilty of this.
> >> The same can be said of many theists and in both cases it is insanity.
> >> At least I don't take the lazy Atheism way out by simply making an
> >> assertion without backing it up with a reasonable argument.
> >> That's how.
> > Atheism has only one argument, and it's completely reasonable.
> What is the argument?
The argument is there exists no basis in reason, logic, scientific
method , the produce thereof or in the application of critical
thinking for the psychotic , superstitious, misanthropic filth to
which christian ideologues mindlessly attach.
> > Some people claim that one or more gods actually exist - we atheists
> > don't believe them.
> Ok...how is that an argument rather than just a rejection? I think that
> you can come up with arguments to prove that there is a specific reason
> why their god cannot exist. I've done this myself and I know you can do the
> same.
Observer
Stupid is as stupid does. The ball is in your court and the burden of
proof is yours as you are the claimant.
> > Do you think that your rejection of Santa Claus is "simply making an
> > assertion without backing is up with a resonable argument"? Or do you just
> > note that the myth of Santa Claus contradicts your knowledge about the real
> > world?
> You have to take a look at the particulars. Proving that Santa exists
> is not so hard. We have to go to the North Pole and find his workshop. Thus
> the story is falsifiable. All we have to do is catch him on an actual radar
> during his ride at Christmas. Have we done any of that? Have we explored
> the north pole? Do we have ways of detecting flying objects through radar
> sightings? It seems that we have the means and opportunity and have
> explored the north pole. Any sign of Santa anywhere? Or is it that parents
> pretend to be that for the sake of their kids' entertainment during a
> holiday season? Where did the story have its origins? It seems that there
> are several versions of Santa Claus that are floating around where I came
> from he was called Dedek Mraz (Father Frost). In the United States he is
> referred to as Santa or St. Nick. In some European countries he is Father
> Christmas. There are considerable divergences in the stories as where I
> came from, he did not have a workshop at the North Pole at all. So, there
> seems to be little unanimity between different cultures as to the nature of
> Santa. In contrast, there is nothing but unanimity regarding the central
> points of Jesus, no matter what culture speaks of him. It is not the case
> that one culture says he was born in Bethlehem and another says he was born
> on the North Pole. Furthermore, even those who think he sprung from a real
> person who was a generous Saint If I were to say that he was the Bishop of
> Myra he would hardly claim the divine attribute of omniscience as the song
> that tells us that "He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're
> awake...he knows if you've been bad or good..." etc. As a Christian Bishop,
> he would know that such an attribute could only belong to god, though
> generosity is not. So, we know that there are serious problems with the
> mythology as we understand it today, which problems point out that a person
> such as described with the attributes ascribed to him, would contradict
> certain version of that story and thus be self contradictory when placed in
> the context of real history. QED.
Ugh !
JABBERWOCKY
Lewis Carroll
(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:25 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:35:15 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:10:40 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>wrote:
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>> Are you going to deny that Atheism has a core of rational and
>>>>> critical thought and its child is evidential method of determining the
>>>>> truth of a thing?
>>>> Yes. Absolutely.
>>> So, you admit that Atheism is irrational? Why would you do that? I
>>> think you should take back your assertion.
>> Being an atheist has nothing to do with rationality or critical thought
>> and it's child isn't evidential method of determining the truth.
> That's the trouble. You are admitting way too much here. If atheism has
> nothing to do with rationality then it is clearly not rational.
It isn't rational or irrational. It's simply a person who isn't a theist.
> I think you should take all this back. If atheism has no basis in
> rational thought, rational people should not adopt it. I don't think that
> this is something you are trying to prove and promote. You can't possibly
> be trying to prove that there is no good reason to become an atheist.
>> An atheist is anyone who isn't a theist.
> Yes. I get that.
>> I was born an atheist.
> I was born a human being. :)
>> I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
> I actually was then moved away from it, but only later in life did I
> come to a realization, on my own, that no amount of indoctrination could
> make me a Christian. I continue to hold that view.
>> Where was the "rationality, critical thought or evidential method"
>> involved in my being an atheist?
> Wow! I am just sorry that you sound more and more like you have a view
> that thinks of reason as something that cripples the mind.
>> It doesn't exist.
> Yet you are using reason to come to that conclusion. That's utterly self
> contradictory when you claim that reason plays no role in all of that.
>> I'm an atheist simply because I'm not a theist.
> No, that is not correct. You are an atheist because you are neither
> an agnostic nor a theist. You seem unaware of a third alternative
Agnosticism isn't a third position. It's a statement of knowledge.
Atheism is a statement of belief.
Do you believe in the existence of gods? No? you're an atheist.
Do you believe that human beings can know whether or not gods exist? No?
You're an agnostic.
You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
Or you can be agnostic about some gods (undefined) and not agnostic about
other gods (defined).
> which leads me to believe your previous claims that you have little
> practice in careful thinking. But really! To make such outrageous claims
> that Atheism is utterly irrational
You said that I didn't. So, please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm making some very clear, unambiguous, statements that are supported
rationally.
For example, it's quite absurd to call a lack of belief in something a
"world view". Exactly how does that work rationally speaking?
It's like calling bald a hair color to use the usual example.
A label used to describe something is just that. A label. It has no more
meaning than that.
> and then glue yourself to that view then think that you can be rational
> in doing it...is .... you need to take that back. I have no desire to have
> you make yourself look like a fool.
To the irrational atheists who think that atheism is a belief system. Are
you noting how desperately the theist also clings to that claim?
And how the theist supports that claim using exactly the same tactics that
you use?
Are you getting the picture yet? Or are you continue to cling stubbornly to
your atheist dogmas.
> Please...please...please take it back. Think of your reputation.
> I am deeply hurt by your statements because it hurts you.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/wj-Nn9qysZcJ.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
--Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 10:14:43 AM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> On Aug 3, 8:40 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, Observer wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 7:35 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 7:02:50 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 3, 8:32 am, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:59:26 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Aug., 13:49, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:59:14 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:
> > > > > > > > > LL. I don't know how the author came up with the term > "new > > > > > atheism," > > > > > > > > > but it is a complete misnomer and shows he doesn't have a > clue > > > as > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > what atheism is. This premise has nothing to do with > atheism > > > and, > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > fact, it is a ridiculous term on its face. There can be > no > > > new or > > > > > old > > > > > > > > > atheism. There is only atheism and it means only one > thing. > > > > > Atheism > > > > > > > > > never takes a position on anything but the existence of > > > god(s).
> > > > > > > > Well, the problem with that is that taking a position on > > > either > > > > > side > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the god existence equation, effects how many other things > are > > > > > actually > > > > > > > > perceived. So, you kind of have to take positions that are > > > > > consistent > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > your particular view of the existence/non-existence of god. > > > Atheism > > > > > > > > necessitates, as does theism, espousing certain positions > that > > > are > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > to the view on existence of god. So, atheism actually > > > establishes > > > > > > > certain > > > > > > > > positions based on its understanding of the existence of > god. I > > > > > think to > > > > > > > > claim otherwise is just an intellectual cop-out.
> > > > > > > Atheism does not "necessitate" naturalism. It may motivate it > and > > > be > > > > > > > correlated with it.
> > > > > > If it doesn't necessitate it, what's the alternative to > naturalism > > > > > that > > > > > > is consistent with Atheism?
> > > > > If Scientology's creation story has no God, it is an alternative > to > > > > > theistic creation stories. As for whether it is also an > alternative to > > > > > naturalism, see for yourself: > > > > >http://altreligion.about.com/od/mythologicalfigures/a/xenu.htm
> > > > It might be an alternative to naturalism, but my question was if > it > > > was > > > > consistent with Atheism. The central tenet of Atheism rests on the > claim > > > > that there is no god and that is based on rational basis of there > being > > > no > > > > empirical evidence to the contrary. Since Atheism is empirical > evidence > > > > based in its claims, it would seem to me that it is inconsistent > with a > > > > mythos that provides no empirical evidence for its claims. So, I > don't > > > > think that it can be considered consistent with central methods of > > > arriving > > > > at conclusions that Atheism claims for itself. It does not meet my > > > > requested criteria. I just don't think it is consistent with the > nature > > > of > > > > Atheism.
> > > > > I wonder whether this counts as naturalism (it could be > interpreted as > > > > > an alternation between big bangs and big crunches) > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution > > > > > ‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long > > > > > period this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are > > > > > mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, > mind- > > > > > made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through the air, > > > > > glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner > or > > > > > later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand > again. At > > > > > a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, > > > > > having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world.
> > > > I think that Buddhism fails for the same reason. It is simply > > > inconsistent > > > > with the basic nature of Atheism if we are to think of Atheism as
> > > > fundamentally empirical or rational and evidence based. > > > \
> > > Observer
> > > We are called atheists, the meaning of which differs in the minds of > > > men and women according to their convictions there about . The label > > > makes little difference as does the meaning attached there to . We are
> > Let's see if you are able to respond to a question with a simple yes > or > > no. > > Do you think that there is no empirical evidence available that > Scientology > > has any basis in history?
> Observer
> Responding to such a question has no bearing on the dumb ass ideas set > forth in christian mythology nor the piece I wrote on atheism.
> Are you altogether unable to stay on topic?
Well if mentioning atheism and a reasonable historical argument in the same breath is going off topic about the reasonableness of atheism, then you are working hard to prove my point for me. I am baffled that you would be eager to do that since it is like taking a gun to your head and pulling the trigger.
> > Yes or No?
> No
> Albeit a brief history of beliefs formulated by a of pulp fiction > writer of dubious skills.
I agree with your assessment of his writing skills. I found myself unable to plow through his book without seriously snoring and I like Sci-Fi, when it is well written that is.
> Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. > Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), starting in 1952, as a successor to his > earlier self-help system, Dianetics.[4] Hubbard characterized > Scientology as a religion, and in 1953 incorporated the Church of > Scientology in Camden, New Jersey.[5][6]
> The one thing that would ever shock you would be the learning of and > the results necessitated by the application of reason, logic, > scientific method, the produce there of and critical thinking.
...instead of a sales pitch? Yeah. I would like you to do that instead of this sales pitch. I can't stand salesmen. A scientist is someone I would like to talk to a lot better. Every time I talk to a salesman, it makes me want to shoot him (not that I would).
All your statements are conveying is a sales pitch. Please stop being a salesman. A switch to science would be a major jump forward for you. Not to mention that you would become a contributing member of society instead of a waste of time.
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 2:58:29 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:25 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:35:15 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 4:10:40 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM, yarr...@aol.com <yarr...@aol.com>wrote:
>>>>> <snipped>
>>>>>> Are you going to deny that Atheism has a core of rational and >>>>>> critical thought and its child is evidential method of determining the >>>>>> truth of a thing?
>>>>> Yes. Absolutely.
>>>> So, you admit that Atheism is irrational? Why would you do that? I >>>> think you should take back your assertion.
>>> Being an atheist has nothing to do with rationality or critical thought >>> and it's child isn't evidential method of determining the truth.
>> That's the trouble. You are admitting way too much here. If atheism has >> nothing to do with rationality then it is clearly not rational.
> It isn't rational or irrational. It's simply a person who isn't a theist.
The problem is that atheism is irrational. I am not talking about the atheist himself.
>> I think you should take all this back. If atheism has no basis in >> rational thought, rational people should not adopt it. I don't think that >> this is something you are trying to prove and promote. You can't possibly >> be trying to prove that there is no good reason to become an atheist.
>>> An atheist is anyone who isn't a theist.
>> Yes. I get that.
>>> I was born an atheist.
>> I was born a human being. :)
>>> I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
>> I actually was then moved away from it, but only later in life did I >> come to a realization, on my own, that no amount of indoctrination could >> make me a Christian. I continue to hold that view.
>>> Where was the "rationality, critical thought or evidential method" >>> involved in my being an atheist?
>> Wow! I am just sorry that you sound more and more like you have a >> view that thinks of reason as something that cripples the mind.
>>> It doesn't exist.
>> Yet you are using reason to come to that conclusion. That's utterly >> self contradictory when you claim that reason plays no role in all of that.
>>> I'm an atheist simply because I'm not a theist.
>> No, that is not correct. You are an atheist because you are neither >> an agnostic nor a theist. You seem unaware of a third alternative
> Agnosticism isn't a third position. It's a statement of knowledge.
> Atheism is a statement of belief.
You are having some problem with terminology here. knowledge is nothing more or less than a justified true belief. Knowledge and belief are not at odds. There are a whole bunch of things that we count as knowledge that we do not have 100% certainty is actually so, but we have a sufficient level of confidence that they are true to make it count as knowledge. Belief is not the opposite of knowledge. The opposite of belief is disbelief. The opposite of knowledge is ignorance and ignorance can be cured.
> Do you believe in the existence of gods? No? you're an atheist.
> Do you believe that human beings can know whether or not gods exist? No? > You're an agnostic.
Actually, an agnostic can say a lot more than that. He can state that it is not possible to know if god exists or not. So, it is a clear position of belief. But as I stated, I think you are under the wrong impression that the opposite of knowledge is belief and that's a lack of understanding of what those words mean.
> You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
Actually, these are two positions. It is clear that an atheist holds that he knows that god does not exist. That is simply not the same position as saying that one cannot know that he does or does not exist. Two different things. You seem to conflate the two.
On Aug 4, 7:16 pm, "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 2:58:29 PM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:
> > Agnosticism isn't a third position. It's a statement of knowledge.
> > Atheism is a statement of belief.
> You are having some problem with terminology here. knowledge is nothing
> more or less than a justified true belief. Knowledge and belief are not at
> odds. There are a whole bunch of things that we count as knowledge that we
> do not have 100% certainty is actually so, but we have a sufficient level
> of confidence that they are true to make it count as knowledge. Belief is
> not the opposite of knowledge. The opposite of belief is disbelief. The
> opposite of knowledge is ignorance and ignorance can be cured.
Consider this scenario: You have seen the Loch Ness monster and
therefore know that it exists but you are unable to show Nessie to
anyone else because it doesn't answer to your summons. I am ignorant
of whether Nessie exists. How can my ignorance be cured?
