Message from discussion Atheism and Evidence
From: BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Atheism and Evidence
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1241473817 31195 127.0.0.1 (4 May 2009 21:50:17 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:50:17 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.8.131.52;
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206)
On May 4, 11:42=A0am, sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
> Atheism and Evidence
> The problem with the realist/superstitious
> controversy (as opposed to the secularism/
> faith debate... which is strictly speaking
> one of a political power-struggle over who
> will direct society), is that THERE REALLY
> IS NO GOD. Therefore a statement like the
> one above ["there is no god"] always resolves
> to a merely/purely personal testimony!!!
> =A0 e.g. how in the heck can the atheist "KNOW"
> =A0 there is no god IF HE'S NEVER FOUND HIM!
> =A0 At worst, the atheist is doomed to an eternity
> =A0 of futilely looking for Him... "Found Him yet?"
> =A0 "... not yet. Still looking, though--"
> The opposite, of course, is also just as true.
> In other words, "there is a god" also resolves
> to a merely/purely personal testimony:
> Ask such a believer how he/she KNOWS there
> is a god and they're likely to tell you "because
> the flowers bloom in the spring" or some such
> nonsense. Well, "No. That's manure: Manure,
> not god, is why the flowers bloom in the spring,
> plus more Sun, et al."
> The problem here is self-evident then:
> =A0 If the believer KNOWS there is a god
> =A0 he/she hath killed FAITH (in god). [The
> =A0 only upside here is that maybe he/she
> =A0 had a nice brunch with Him ...]
> What both "witnesses" are saying is:
> Believer: "I KNOW there is a god!"
> Atheist: "I KNOW there is no god."
> And both testimonies are equivalent: lies.
> My advice is to study the brain's ultimate
> function--which is to solve problems, to
> overcome them. [And yet there are so many
> problems in the world which no human brain
> will ever solve/overcome... both simple
> and complex (problems) too.]
> So I wonder what might result from the
> human brain not being able to overcome
> all those unresolvable problems which
> God now resolves so easily via a simple
> transaction (prayer by another name).
> I often tell people how "I know there is
> no god but I still pray to him" and they tell
> me they have no idea what I'm talking about.
> (Which is incomprehensible to me, of course,
> since THAT is the universal experience!)
> Well, I have often spoken with persons who
> swear to me (by God) they are truly atheists.
> But then we get around to what's going on in
> his/her brain when driving towards a distant
> green light ... on a morning when they are very
> late for a very important appointment ...
> And then they know what I'm talking about:
> =A0 Only a "robot" can be a true atheist--the rest
> =A0 of us are forever bound to a personal dialogue
> =A0 with with our universal alter-ego (GOD).
> God is a very neat invention of the human brain.
> It's when morons are allowed to define God
> that we get into all sorts of trouble with God
> (especially if when we allow psychopaths like
> Mohammed to define God, then blood hell).
> S D Rodrianhttp://poems.sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://M=
> All religions are local.
> Only science is universal.
Here in Usenet/newsgroups (aka Google/NOVA Groups), pretend-Atheism is