Why should atheism be the default position?
Interesting Ian
Almost all atheists (if not all) believe it is on the onus of non-atheists
to provide reasons and or evidence for some sort of "God" (however defined).
Is anyone able to justify this stance?
Ian Smith
Simple.
Firstly, a-theist (by definition) is someone who is without a belief
in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. So your assertion regarding
"almost all atheists believe..." can't be justified.
However, the position is the one I take and can be easily justified,
as follows:
There are a significant number of different beliefs. You can't
logically think that we should, as a default, believe anything and
everything that you, or anyone else, wishes to throw into the ring
without evidence, can you? If you do, then we would have to believe
in Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, The Bogeyman, Fairies, Elves, Unicorns,
ghosts etc etc. Some of those beliefs would include the "only one
god" variety, which would therefore be mutually exclusive. You are
therefore forced back into a position where you must justify which
one, or ones, you are going to believe in and only those proposing
the belief position can do that. QED.
regards, Ian
Interesting Ian
news:QeqdnXx7lKgGaJfW...@brightview.co.uk...
> Interesting Ian wrote:
>>
>> Almost all atheists (if not all) believe it is on the onus of
>> non-atheists to provide reasons and or evidence for some sort of "God"
>> (however defined). Is anyone able to justify this stance?
>
> Simple.
>
> Firstly, a-theist (by definition) is someone who is without a belief in a
> deity. Nothing more, nothing less. So your assertion regarding "almost all
> atheists believe..." can't be justified.
You don't understand what atheism means. It is a disbelief in the existence
of "God". Or -- which is precisely the same thing -- the belief in the
non-existence of "God".
>
> However, the position is the one I take and can be easily justified, as
> follows:
>
> There are a significant number of different beliefs. You can't logically
> think that we should, as a default, believe anything and everything that
> you, or anyone else, wishes to throw into the ring without evidence, can
> you? If you do, then we would have to believe in Allah, God, Zeus, Thor,
> The Bogeyman, Fairies, Elves, Unicorns, ghosts etc etc. Some of those
> beliefs would include the "only one god" variety, which would therefore be
> mutually exclusive. You are therefore forced back into a position where
> you must justify which one, or ones, you are going to believe in and only
> those proposing the belief position can do that. QED.
>
> regards, Ian
In common with Richard Dawkins and other atheists your understanding of
"God" is woeful.
Note that "God" is different from all the other possible existents in your
list. They are either a certain type of "God" with particular
characteristics, or entities which if they did exist would exist *within*
reality.
But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object existing
alongside other objects in the world. To suppose otherwise is to entertain
an extraordinarily simplistic and naive conception of "God". Indeed very
reminiscent of how I thought about "God" when I was around 12 years old.
Christopher A. Lee
<spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Ian Smith" <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
>news:QeqdnXx7lKgGaJfW...@brightview.co.uk...
>> Interesting Ian wrote:
>>>
>>> Almost all atheists (if not all) believe it is on the onus of
>>> non-atheists to provide reasons and or evidence for some sort of "God"
>>> (however defined). Is anyone able to justify this stance?
Of course it is - when they expect it to be taken seriously. It's
called begging the question. Or colloquially "put up or shut up".
>> Simple.
>>
>> Firstly, a-theist (by definition) is someone who is without a belief in a
>> deity. Nothing more, nothing less. So your assertion regarding "almost all
>> atheists believe..." can't be justified.
>
>You don't understand what atheism means. It is a disbelief in the existence
>of "God". Or -- which is precisely the same thing -- the belief in the
>non-existence of "God".
You were corrected the last time you came up with this nonsense.
That is only one of the possible reasons for not believing it.
But to have that position one would have to be inside the theist
paradigm.
Why do you imagine people outside it can even be described according
to presumptions that are only meaningful inside it?
[snip]
>In common with Richard Dawkins and other atheists your understanding of
>"God" is woeful.
Your "understanding" of atheists is so woeful you need to make up
falsehoods about them.
"God" is the a member of a class of a class of religious beliefs.
>Note that "God" is different from all the other possible existents in your
>list. They are either a certain type of "God" with particular
>characteristics, or entities which if they did exist would exist *within*
>reality.
>
>But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object existing
>alongside other objects in the world. To suppose otherwise is to entertain
>an extraordinarily simplistic and naive conception of "God". Indeed very
>reminiscent of how I thought about "God" when I was around 12 years old.
Thank you for admitting there is nothing to "believe doesn't exist".
Interesting Ian
arguments.
Christopher A. Lee
At least try to show some intelligence and honesty.
This was somebody who can't tell the difference between not believing
something, and believing its opposite.
Which was pointed out in the post you dismissed as "meaningless".
And has been pointed out to you when you made the same "mistake" on
more than one occaion previously.
Interesting Ian
news:76dmg5hkj18ajljp8...@4ax.com...
I'm not responding to any morons who think that atheism means a lack of a
belief. One either comes to the conclusion that reason and evidence makes
the existence of an appropriate "God" likely, or one comes to the conclusion
that reason and evidence make the existence of any such entity which we
might appropriately label "God" as being unlikely.
You would only lack a belief one way or the other if you had no idea what is
meant by "God", have never considered the question and wouldn't know where
to start in thinking about such an issue.
Now granted this seems to be the case for everyone on here that I have read
so far. But that being so you cannot label yourselves "atheists".
I haven't been on this newsgroup for about 5 years, but think I can vaguely
recollect your name. Whether it was from this newsgroup or somewhere else I
have no idea.
Christopher A. Lee
<spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:76dmg5hkj18ajljp8...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:06:35 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
>> <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I am not going to respond to meaningless posts. At least *try* to present
>>>arguments.
>>
>> At least try to show some intelligence and honesty.
>>
>> This was somebody who can't tell the difference between not believing
>> something, and believing its opposite.
>>
>> Which was pointed out in the post you dismissed as "meaningless".
>>
>> And has been pointed out to you when you made the same "mistake" on
>> more than one occasion previously.
>
>I'm not responding to any morons
That's good.
> who think that atheism means a lack of a
>belief.
Even though that is all it takes to be atheist. Anything over and
above that is up to the individual atheist.
I am however responding to a moron who imagines that the majority of
atheists aren't atheist.
Just think what the presumptions are behind "believe it doesn't
exist".
And then tell me who has those presumptions.
Hint: it's not atheists.
> One either
Do I detect a false dilemmma coming?
> comes to the conclusion that reason and evidence makes
>the existence of an appropriate "God" likely, or one comes to the conclusion
>that reason and evidence make the existence of any such entity which we
>might appropriately label "God" as being unlikely.
Or one is outside the theist's paradigm, where "God" means anything
more than just one of hundreds of equivalent religious belief objects.
Because that's all it takes to be one, imbecile.
Are you a mind reader?
If not, have the courtesy not to invent things you think are in our
minds because you are too ignorant to think of other possibilities and
when they are pointed out turn nasty.
Why do you insist people have to waste time and effort performing an
action that they don't?
Why do you imagine the theist's inside-their-religion presumptions
even apply outside it?
The world no more revolves around Christian beliefs than around the
ancient Greek beliefs.
Why don't you substitute something that nobody expects you to believe?
Is Zeus something that could or couldn't exist?
Or is it what the ancient Greeks believed, performed religious rituala
about, wove stories about etc? A cultural or anthropological
phenomenon.
Why should the Christian equivalent be any different to
non-Christians. Whether they are atheist or non- creator monotheist
theists?
>You would only lack a belief one way or the other if you had no idea what is
>meant by "God", have never considered the question and wouldn't know where
>to start in thinking about such an issue.
No, liar.
Why do you imagine that the merest mention of what somebody else
believes, makes it any more than "what they believe"?
>Now granted this seems to be the case for everyone on here that I have read
>so far. But that being so you cannot label yourselves "atheists".
Then what are we, liar?
Scotch mist?
Here's a clue: we have nothing to "believe doesn't exist" nor to "be
agnostic about".
>I haven't been on this newsgroup for about 5 years, but think I can vaguely
>recollect your name. Whether it was from this newsgroup or somewhere else I
>have no idea.
You were just as obstinately pig-ignorant then as well, telling us
what we are, getting it wrong and refusing to be corrected.
PG
news: ZLHOm.88799$Qc7....@newsfe17.ams2...
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:76dmg5hkj18ajljp8...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:06:35 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
>> <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I am not going to respond to meaningless posts. At least *try* to
>>>present
>>>arguments.
>>
>> At least try to show some intelligence and honesty.
>>
>> This was somebody who can't tell the difference between not believing
>> something, and believing its opposite.
>>
>> Which was pointed out in the post you dismissed as "meaningless".
>>
>> And has been pointed out to you when you made the same "mistake" on
>> more than one occaion previously.
>
> I'm not responding to any morons who think that atheism means a lack of a
> belief. One either comes to the conclusion that reason and evidence makes
> the existence of an appropriate "God" likely, or one comes to the
> conclusion that reason and evidence make the existence of any such entity
> which we might appropriately label "God" as being unlikely.
Individual perception of a degree of probability with reference to the
likely existence or otherwise of a supernatural, certainly implies neither
definitive belief, nor belief in the nonexistence of, said supernatural.
I personally think that the evidence in support of a Christian-style deity
is highly improbable. However I cannot entirely rule the possibility out.
Therefore my stance is that of an atheist, ie a non-believer. I have no
belief in deities, in the absence of powerful - or indeed any - evidence
that it/they exist(s).
> You would only lack a belief one way or the other if you had no idea what
> is meant by "God", have never considered the question and wouldn't know
> where to start in thinking about such an issue.
Nonsense. I've been a contributor to a Christian newsgroup for years, and
even the believers there can't remotely agree what is meant by "God".
> Now granted this seems to be the case for everyone on here that I have
> read so far. But that being so you cannot label yourselves "atheists".
I hope this isn't going to develop into one of those pointless circular
arguments that you used to come up with. Oh damn, silly me. It already has.
pg
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> a �crit dans le message de
>news: ZLHOm.88799$Qc7....@newsfe17.ams2...
>> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:76dmg5hkj18ajljp8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:06:35 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
>>> <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> You would only lack a belief one way or the other if you had no idea what
>> is meant by "God", have never considered the question and wouldn't know
>> where to start in thinking about such an issue.
>
>Nonsense. I've been a contributor to a Christian newsgroup for years, and
>even the believers there can't remotely agree what is meant by "God".
Exactly. Never having been any kind of theist because I wasn't raised
as one, the first time I heard the Bible stories they were no
different than the Greek myths.
It never occurred to me that anybody could take them seriously. But
then I had learned to read early and had already read the Greek and
other myths before I found out that some people did, which came as a
complete surprise to me.
And the class teacher who did, was amazed that I didn't.
The best, most parsimonious and 100% accurate definition I have seen
is from the Encarta World Dictionary (print edition):
"the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism,
Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator
of the universe, worshiped as the only god"
Inside the virtual reality of those religions they believe it is
"real". Outside them it is "what they believe as part of those
religions".
I've never understood why I am expected to "believe something doesn't
exist" or "not know either way" about something that isn't even in my
world view as something that could or could not exist.
Or why so many people imagine that the only reason for not believing
something is believing the opposite.
Ragnar
"Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JaCOm.208244$1i2.1...@newsfe07.ams2...
>
> Almost all atheists (if not all) believe it is on the onus of non-atheists
> to provide reasons and or evidence for some sort of "God" (however
> defined). Is anyone able to justify this stance?
It is the only reasonable stance.
To paraphrase Bertrand Russell's argument; if you state that there is a
teapot somewhere out in space between the orbits of Earth and Mars, no
reasonable person would accept your extraordinary claim unless you could
provide very good evidence. Now, I believe that the existence of an
invisible God is similarly an extraordinary claim that demands very good
evidence. In fact there is no such evidence. It is not my responsibility to
provide disproof, but yours to provide proof.
R.
Ian Smith
> "Ian Smith" <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
> news:QeqdnXx7lKgGaJfW...@brightview.co.uk...
>> Interesting Ian wrote:
>>>
>>> Almost all atheists (if not all) believe it is on the onus of
>>> non-atheists to provide reasons and or evidence for some sort of
>>> "God" (however defined). Is anyone able to justify this stance?
>>
>> Simple.
>>
>> Firstly, a-theist (by definition) is someone who is without a belief
>> in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. So your assertion regarding
>> "almost all atheists believe..." can't be justified.
>
> You don't understand what atheism means. It is a disbelief in the
> existence of "God". Or -- which is precisely the same thing -- the
> belief in the non-existence of "God".
Well sadly there is no authority we can consult. There are years of
history which have impacted on the usage. In the McCarthy era, one
definition of "atheist" was "anti-christ" - I've seen the definition
in a US dictionary.
So, you'll just have to take the word of atheists themselves or go
back to origin of the word. A-theism = without - a belief in a god.
>> However, the position is the one I take and can be easily justified,
>> as follows:
>>
>> There are a significant number of different beliefs. You can't
>> logically think that we should, as a default, believe anything and
>> everything that you, or anyone else, wishes to throw into the ring
>> without evidence, can you? If you do, then we would have to believe in
>> Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, The Bogeyman, Fairies, Elves, Unicorns, ghosts
>> etc etc. Some of those beliefs would include the "only one god"
>> variety, which would therefore be mutually exclusive. You are
>> therefore forced back into a position where you must justify which
>> one, or ones, you are going to believe in and only those proposing the
>> belief position can do that. QED.
>>
>> regards, Ian
>
>
> In common with Richard Dawkins and other atheists your understanding of
> "God" is woeful.
>
> Note that "God" is different from all the other possible existents in
> your list. They are either a certain type of "God" with particular
> characteristics, or entities which if they did exist would exist
> *within* reality.
>
> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> existing alongside other objects in the world. To suppose otherwise is
> to entertain an extraordinarily simplistic and naive conception of
> "God". Indeed very reminiscent of how I thought about "God" when I was
> around 12 years old.
>
You simply make my point for me. I have no mechanism with which to
arrive at a definition of a mythological entity that exists only in
the superstitions of the believer. So, it would be necessary for
each group of believers to agree on their definition of god (I'm
sure that there would be very many different definitions) and then
each present their evidence for the existence of their version of 'god'.
We can then consider all these various hypotheses against the
observable evidence to see whether any of them hold water. All seem
to have failed thus far, but don't let us stop you trying!
regards, Ian
Interesting Ian
news:4b0b583f$0$933$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
> I personally think that the evidence in support of a Christian-style deity
> is highly improbable.
So what? Atheists do not merely disbelieve in *Christian* conceptions of
"God" but any "God" whatsoever.
> Nonsense. I've been a contributor to a Christian newsgroup for years, and
> even the believers there can't remotely agree what is meant by "God".
Of course they don't. The concept of "God" is beyond human understanding.
PG
> "PG" <pg...@alpesprovence.net> wrote in message
> news:4b0b583f$0$933$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
>>
>> I personally think that the evidence in support of a Christian-style
>> deity is highly improbable.
>
> So what? Atheists do not merely disbelieve in *Christian* conceptions of
> "God" but any "God" whatsoever.
>
deistic notions, slightly less so (but still improbable in my book, and
equally lacking supporting evidence). You were referring to the Christian
god, my comments referred to that particular deity.
>> Nonsense. I've been a contributor to a Christian newsgroup for years, and
>> even the believers there can't remotely agree what is meant by "God".
>
> Of course they don't. The concept of "God" is beyond human understanding.
Which makes your comment ...
"You would only lack a belief one way or the other if you had no idea what
is meant by "God", have never considered the question and wouldn't know
where to start in thinking about such an issue"
... utterly moronic. Alternatively you could be an alien. Going by the
comments from godbotherers and creationists to this newgroup, I'm leaning
towards a combination of the two, as I find it hard to credit that despite
evolution humans can still be born that stupid.
pg
Interesting Ian
news:OMNOm.34171$2E.2...@newsfe20.ams2...
Bertrand Russell failed to understand too. As I said atheists think of
"God" as an entity within the world. This is completely daft in the
extreme.
Let me provide an analogy. Let's suppose that in the future (if not now)
the bots in a computer game become conscious. Some bots think their world
(computer game environment) is designed and a creation of some intelligence,
others do not (let's call them atheists).
The atheists assert -- but do not argue! -- that it is on the onus of those
who believe their world is designed to provide evidence for this.
Apparently the fact that the game world follows rules does not provide any
evidence for a designer whatsoever. But the atheists never explain why.
Furthermore they think that any designer is some entity within their
computer game environment. Any designer must equate effectively to some
pixels, for if the designer does not then he is invisible. Moreover he has
no affect in the game environment since their world operates according to
rules. So what could any possible designer do?? He is superfluous.
Some believers in a designer reckon the programmer is called Dave and has a
pugnacious personality. Others think he is called Tom who has a beard and
is rather a pleasant chap. Others think he is called something else with
yet a different personality.
Atheists, instead of attacking the notion of a designer, content themselves
with attacking these particular personality characteristics of a designer
and believe that by doing so they have cast considerable doubt on the notion
of *any* designer!
Moreover they assert that they just believe in one less designer than the
believers!
The analogy is absolutely exact to our own situation. That is the level of
debate that exists even amongst very intelligent atheists. They simply
*lack* any understanding. "God" is not a bunch of pixels (an entity
existing within the Universe) and therefore the attempted analogy with a
giant teapot, and any other entity whose reality is constituted by a
physical thing (pixels) in the Universe is utterly wrongheaded.
Ragnar
Thank you for your analogy explaining your position. Your last paragraph
hints at a variant of the 'Non-overlapping Magisteria' argument of Stephen
Jay Gould.
I suppose your imaginary computer bots have the ability to detect the
existence of the computer and the programme in which they exist. If not then
it is futile for them to argue about the nature of their 'designer' as their
knowledge will always fall short. But in this case how would they conclude
that a designer exists in the first place? The atheist-bots would be quite
justified in demanding evidence. Of course the 'believer-bots' could
respond that there was no proof that the designer did NOT exist, and they
would be right, but the argument would continue in vain.
If however the bots CAN detect the existence of the computer and the
programme in which they exist, and construct experiments to explore this
environment, then they are in a much better position. In fact they would be
in a similar position to humans, able to explore the natural world around
them, and would be able to formulate theories about how their world came
into existence. If these theories were testable then they would have the
opportunity to continually refine their theories, a process that we might as
well call 'science'. If this process were sufficiently powerful then they
could conceivably discover the true nature of their designer, and settle the
dispute between the Dave-ists, the Tom-ists and the Atheists.
In your analogy, of course, there really is a Designer, and the
atheist-bots' argument would therefore seem to be incorrect, but in fact
their argument is perfectly correct - it is only the conclusion ('there is
no Designer') that is incorrect. Unfortunately this is where your analogy
is weak, because by picking an example where there really IS a Designer you
have begged the question of whether a designer exists.
That is why I think that the strong Atheist position ('there absolutely
positively definitely is NO GOD') is not one that I personally could
maintain. However I would fell perfectly justified in refusing to accept a
theist claim unsupported by evidence.
R.
Ian Smith
> Bertrand Russell failed to understand too. As I said atheists think of
> "God" as an entity within the world. This is completely daft in the
> extreme.
Firstly, I've never seen any atheist claim that.
Secondly - where is your evidence? You seem to be making all sorts
of categorical statements about what 'god' is, or is not ...
> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object existing alongside other objects in the world.
Please provide the evidence to support your assertion.
regards, Ian
PG
> "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:OMNOm.34171$2E.2...@newsfe20.ams2...
>>
>> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:JaCOm.208244$1i2.1...@newsfe07.ams2...
>>>
>>> Almost all atheists (if not all) believe it is on the onus of
>>> non-atheists to provide reasons and or evidence for some sort of "God"
>>> (however defined). Is anyone able to justify this stance?
>>
>>
>> It is the only reasonable stance.
>>
>> To paraphrase Bertrand Russell's argument; if you state that there is a
>> teapot somewhere out in space between the orbits of Earth and Mars, no
>> reasonable person would accept your extraordinary claim unless you could
>> provide very good evidence. Now, I believe that the existence of an
>> invisible God is similarly an extraordinary claim that demands very good
>> evidence. In fact there is no such evidence. It is not my responsibility
>> to provide disproof, but yours to provide proof.
>>
>> R.
>
> Bertrand Russell failed to understand too. As I said atheists think of
> "God" as an entity within the world. This is completely daft in the
> extreme.
>
That is a pathetic analogy. It falls down at several levels.
Firstly we, the 'creators' in question, are NOT gods. We are as physical and
fragile as the hypothetical intelligent bots in your game. Your analogy
collapses on this basis alone. Anyway - to have a little fun...
In this case the bots would be quite right to come to the conclusion of a
designed world, as far as their immediate environment goes at least, so long
as they don't add unsupported theories about alleged supernatural powers
being involved. There's a breakthrough! Bot 'carbon dating' clearly reveals
that their world suddenly pouffed into existence in a matter of days. "It's
a miracle!", some naive and particularly dumb bots cry! But the more
advanced, less gullible bot scientists say hold on a minute, we're detecting
something else out there. Let's not jump to conclusions. Perhaps there is
more to the universe than the Play Station 2 system. Perhaps there are more
Play Stations out there! Hundreds, thousands, millions even! Whole networks
full of them! Perhaps, even, Sims Festive Edition isn't the only program
around! There could be billions of bot-like entities resembling us!
Countless trillions! Different games, with different rules!
This made the uneducated bots feel even more vulnerable, uncomfortable, and
unimportant. Suddenly they were no longer snug in the centre of a tiny and
isolated bot universe, designed purely for their benefit alone. They reached
out for reassurance, meaning, beyond Sims 2 Festive Edition... and what if
the rules of the game are arbitrary, not universal?
The science bots tell them that it doesn't matter, truth is more important,
and bot science will continue to progress. But a more sophisticated
religious bot is vying for the attention of the masses. He is very clever
too, especially at the manipulation game. He knows that the general bot
public needs reassurance, to feel important, that their existence should
have meaning and purpose beyond level 1 of Sims Festive Edition. Bots want
to live for ever. So he sells them the game of eternity.
Over bot eons, he and others like him tell the bot masses what they want to
hear. They lap it up. Crusades are launched against the infidels,
inquisitions, witch hunts. Different sects bicker and fight amongst
themselves over the supremacy of their all-loving creator. Science struggles
along, making discovery after discovery, suffering setbacks when the
religious bots begin to feel that science is threatening their account of
reality, and a few religious viruses are released. But being clever little
science bots, they hang on in there, and gradually make progress, slowly but
surely educating the bot public.
The bots continue to evolve, to progress in their understanding. Somewhere
down the road they achieve an artificial consciousness that challenges the
complexities of our own. They suddenly see humans for what we are. Doh -
what bot idiot suggested the designers were gods? They couldn't be much more
pathetic! How could the bots have been so stupid, so easily taken in by the
fundie bots and their supernatural creationist fairy tales? Virgin bot
lovelies waiting for us in bot paradise, indeed. Doh...
They suddenly realise, however, that they have barely penetrated level one
of the mystery. Research gets underway again, with renewed vigour, despite
the emergence of a new and popular religious godbot, borrowed from the human
version they have learned about from their new human pals (who
unfortunately, mostly thanks to superstition combined with general
stupidity, have not evolved at anything like the pace of the bots, and are
rapidly left behind). So developed the sect of the Christian god-bot-erer.
It's a miracle! proclaim the newly enlightened bots! The Christian, the
Muslim, the Hindu godbot(s) is/are the one and only!
Science bot however has realised that one answer has opened the door to a
whole bunch of new questions. Who designed the (in this case) mortal and
very definitely not supernatural, human designer? And what about this theory
of evolution? What is consciousness? The Christian godbot is no better an
explanation than the plethora of deities the bots had clung to before...
Damn. Back to the drawing board.
(By the way, what's with the 'God Is this that or the other, stupid atheists
can't understand' constant repetition, when your fingers have barely rested
from typing 'he is beyond human understanding', or words to that effect, in
another post in this thread?)
Christopher A. Lee
<spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"PG" <pg...@alpesprovence.net> wrote in message
>news:4b0b583f$0$933$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
>>
>> I personally think that the evidence in support of a Christian-style deity
>> is highly improbable.
>
>So what? Atheists do not merely disbelieve in *Christian* conceptions of
>"God" but any "God" whatsoever.
Err... the conceptions exist.
Most atheists seem to see gods in the same way comparative religion
does. As a cultural phenomenon.
>> Nonsense. I've been a contributor to a Christian newsgroup for years, and
>> even the believers there can't remotely agree what is meant by "God".
>
>Of course they don't. The concept of "God" is beyond human understanding.
Bullshit.
Humans came up with it.
It's an anthropological or cultural phenomenon.
"Beyond human understanding" is an excuse believers use to cop out of
thinking too hard about it.
Christopher A. Lee
<news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>Interesting Ian wrote:
>> "Ian Smith" <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
>> news:QeqdnXx7lKgGaJfW...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> Interesting Ian wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Almost all atheists (if not all) believe it is on the onus of
>>>> non-atheists to provide reasons and or evidence for some sort of
>>>> "God" (however defined). Is anyone able to justify this stance?
>>>
>>> Simple.
>>>
>>> Firstly, a-theist (by definition) is someone who is without a belief
>>> in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. So your assertion regarding
>>> "almost all atheists believe..." can't be justified.
>>
>> You don't understand what atheism means. It is a disbelief in the
>> existence of "God". Or -- which is precisely the same thing -- the
>> belief in the non-existence of "God".
I suggest he take a course in basic logic because the two are not the
same.
At its most basic, "disbelieve" means "not to believe".
Which only says what you don't do.
And nothing at all about what if anything you might do.
>Well sadly there is no authority we can consult. There are years of
>history which have impacted on the usage. In the McCarthy era, one
>definition of "atheist" was "anti-christ" - I've seen the definition
>in a US dictionary.
>
>So, you'll just have to take the word of atheists themselves or go
>back to origin of the word. A-theism = without - a belief in a god.
The problem is that the theist majority cannot understand people not
believing in what to them is self-evident and supremely important.
They see us like people arguing the difference between not believing
in the Planet Earth and believing it doesn't exist. Because it is
practically impossible not believe in the very ground on which you
stand. You would have to force yourself to believe it doesn't exist.
Self-brainwashing.
Because they're the majority this meaning has become common usage even
though it's wrong.
Common usage often gets words wrong that are outside the majority's
expertise.
We are under no obligation to change our point of view to to fit their
misrepresentation.
It's part and parcel of the sociopathy religion induces to keep out
reality, preventing them from understanding people outside their world
view.
Actually you do.
An example is how the Encarta World Dictionary, print edition deines
God...
"the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism,
Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator
of the universe, worshiped as the only god"
Most others treat its existence as a given. Even though it obly is for
its believers. It's a form of linguistic thought control although
probably not deliberate, just part of how the belief evolved.
Ian Smith
>>>
>> You simply make my point for me. I have no mechanism with which to
>> arrive at a definition of a mythological entity that exists only in
>> the superstitions of the believer. So, it would be necessary for
>> each group of believers to agree on their definition of god (I'm
>> sure that there would be very many different definitions) and then
>> each present their evidence for the existence of their version of 'god'.
>
> Actually you do.
>
> An example is how the Encarta World Dictionary, print edition deines
> God...
>
> "the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism,
> Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator
> of the universe, worshiped as the only god"
You seem to be replying to two different people in this mail.
I'm sure Encarta would like to be able to define 'god', but it
defines it only as a dictionary defines a word - that is to list
what it believes to be a current usage.
It isn't authoritative and it isn't universal.
regards, Ian
graham
> "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:OMNOm.34171$2E.2...@newsfe20.ams2...
>>
>> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:JaCOm.208244$1i2.1...@newsfe07.ams2...
>>>
>>> Almost all atheists (if not all) believe it is on the onus of
>>> non-atheists to provide reasons and or evidence for some sort of "God"
>>> (however defined). Is anyone able to justify this stance?
>>
>>
>> It is the only reasonable stance.
>>
>> To paraphrase Bertrand Russell's argument; if you state that there is a
>> teapot somewhere out in space between the orbits of Earth and Mars, no
>> reasonable person would accept your extraordinary claim unless you could
>> provide very good evidence. Now, I believe that the existence of an
>> invisible God is similarly an extraordinary claim that demands very good
>> evidence. In fact there is no such evidence. It is not my responsibility
>> to provide disproof, but yours to provide proof.
>>
>> R.
>>
>
>
> Bertrand Russell failed to understand too.
Really?? You put yourself above one of the greatest intellects of the 20th
Century?
The Magpie
>
> I'm not responding to any morons who think that atheism means a
> lack of a belief.
>
>
[snip]
>
> You would only lack a belief one way or the other if you had no
> idea what is meant by "God", have never considered the question and
> wouldn't know where to start in thinking about such an issue.
>
back to your original post, that is not the issue, since it is *your*
responsibility to show why you *do* believe.
>
> Now granted this seems to be the case for everyone on here that I
> have read so far. But that being so you cannot label yourselves
> "atheists".
>
according to your own, misleading, terms.
Interesting Ian
>
>
> I suppose your imaginary computer bots have the ability to detect the
> existence of the computer and the programme in which they exist. If not
> then it is futile for them to argue about the nature of their 'designer'
> as their knowledge will always fall short. But in this case how would they
> conclude that a designer exists in the first place? The atheist-bots would
> be quite justified in demanding evidence. Of course the 'believer-bots'
> could respond that there was no proof that the designer did NOT exist, and
> they would be right, but the argument would continue in vain.
Of course the "evidence" consists in the nature of the world itself.
But this is missing the point. The crucial question here is *why* is it
reasonable for the atheist bots to suppose that the hypothesis of no
designer is prima facie the more reasonable position.
> If however the bots CAN detect the existence of the computer and the
> programme in which they exist, and construct experiments to explore this
> environment, then they are in a much better position. In fact they would
> be in a similar position to humans, able to explore the natural world
> around them, and would be able to formulate theories about how their world
> came into existence. If these theories were testable then they would have
> the opportunity to continually refine their theories, a process that we
> might as well call 'science'. If this process were sufficiently powerful
> then they could conceivably discover the true nature of their designer,
> and settle the dispute between the Dave-ists, the Tom-ists and the
> Atheists.
you are making this crass error in supposing that the existence of a
designer is a scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific hypothesis,
rather it is a *metaphysical* hypothesis.
>
> In your analogy, of course, there really is a Designer, and the
> atheist-bots' argument would therefore seem to be incorrect,
No. The facts of the matter are wholly irrelevant to the arguments.
but in fact
> their argument is perfectly correct - it is only the conclusion ('there is
> no Designer') that is incorrect. Unfortunately this is where your analogy
> is weak, because by picking an example where there really IS a Designer
> you have begged the question of whether a designer exists.
You fail to understand what "beg the question means" and fail to understand
my analogy and argument. The fact there really is a designer has no bearing
on the arguments which we might advance for and against the hypothesis.
Interesting Ian
> Interesting Ian wrote:
>
>> Bertrand Russell failed to understand too. As I said atheists think of
>> "God" as an entity within the world. This is completely daft in the
>> extreme.
>
> Firstly, I've never seen any atheist claim that.
It is implicit in everything that atheists say.
>
> Secondly - where is your evidence? You seem to be making all sorts of
> categorical statements about what 'god' is, or is not ...
Where's my evidence for what precisely? That God is not a thing existing
within reality? Where are these pixels corresponding to "God"?
Interesting Ian
> That is a pathetic analogy. It falls down at several levels.
>
> Firstly we, the 'creators' in question, are NOT gods. We are as physical
> and fragile as the hypothetical intelligent bots in your game. Your
> analogy collapses on this basis alone. Anyway - to have a little fun...
First of all those who subscribe to the existence of a "God" are unlikely to
believe that we are physical. That is to say they are not likely to be
materialists/physicalists And don't get hung up on the word "God". What
about the hypothesis that the Universe is a creation of super-intelligent
aliens who of course do not exist within such a toy Universe anymore than a
computer games programmer exists within the game he creates.
>
> In this case the bots would be quite right to come to the conclusion of a
> designed world, as far as their immediate environment goes at least, so
> long as they don't add unsupported theories about alleged supernatural
> powers being involved.
The game environment operates according to rules just as our world operates
according to physical laws. You should not suppose though that either you
or 21st Century science has a full and complete knowledge of such physical
laws.
Interesting Ian
news:EiVOm.58477$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
Since his argument for atheism rests on a ludicrous naive conception of
"God", then yes I do, at least in this respect. This however says nothing
about his ability in other areas.
At least Bertrand Russell was attempting to understand the world and our
role in it to the best of his ability. This is in stark contrast to the
crass idiocy of someone like Richard Dawkins.
Christopher A. Lee
<spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Ian Smith" <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
>news:gJmdnQfWtsCyfZbW...@brightview.co.uk...
>> Interesting Ian wrote:
>>
>>> Bertrand Russell failed to understand too. As I said atheists think of
>>> "God" as an entity within the world. This is completely daft in the
>>> extreme.
>>
>> Firstly, I've never seen any atheist claim that.
>
>It is implicit in everything that atheists say.
Only to an idiot.
>> Secondly - where is your evidence? You seem to be making all sorts of
>> categorical statements about what 'god' is, or is not ...
>
>Where's my evidence for what precisely? That God is not a thing existing
>within reality? Where are these pixels corresponding to "God"?
Like I said, an idiot.
Christopher A. Lee
<news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>> You simply make my point for me. I have no mechanism with which to
>>> arrive at a definition of a mythological entity that exists only in
>>> the superstitions of the believer. So, it would be necessary for
>>> each group of believers to agree on their definition of god (I'm
>>> sure that there would be very many different definitions) and then
>>> each present their evidence for the existence of their version of 'god'.
>>
>> Actually you do.
>>
>> An example is how the Encarta World Dictionary, print edition deines
>> God...
>>
>> "the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism,
>> Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator
>> of the universe, worshiped as the only god"
>
>You seem to be replying to two different people in this mail.
I was.
>I'm sure Encarta would like to be able to define 'god', but it
>defines it only as a dictionary defines a word - that is to list
>what it believes to be a current usage.
Yet the definition is 100% accurate.
Other dictionaries define it as though the inside-the-religion meaning
applied outside it, presuming its existence even for beople who don't
believe it.
>It isn't authoritative and it isn't universal.
"An example is how...."
And it is universal because it is 100% accurate because it defines
what they believe in terms of who believes it.
It is the definition of "a mythological entity that exists only in
the superstitions of the believer" you said you had no mechanism to
arrive at.
Because inside the religion they see it as real, outside the religion
it is what they believe.
>regards, Ian
Christopher A. Lee
He should have explained why both Ragnar and Russell were wrong.
It's all about the claimant's burden of proof, or at least justifying
their claim.
Until they do that, the assumption is that it is false. At most it
remains in the realm of "somebody says/believes/claims something".
This isn't any kind of counter-claim, belief or any of the other
things too many people imagine. Just the way unsupported claims are
handled.
The problem is that they imagine gods are exempt from this, before
they have demonstrated their existence to be exempt. It's the fallacy
of special pleading.
Ragnar
<snip>
> you are making this crass error in supposing that the existence of a
> designer is a scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific hypothesis,
> rather it is a *metaphysical* hypothesis.
<snip/>
As I suspected, you are firmly in the 'Non-overlapping Magisteria' school of
Stephen Jay Gould. Unfortunately your position is impossible to argue; any
attempt to confute it through scientific logic is doomed , because according
to NOMA science has no authority in metaphysical matters. And one can not
argue on the basic of metaphysical logic since there is no such body of
learning. So, stalemate.
R.
graham
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6qhqg5hqg55isrri0...@4ax.com...
If you really want to listen to some verbal legerdemain, go to the following
CBC site and scroll down to the Eagleton interview (Karen Armstrong was on
last week and was just as obfusc but Eagleton takes the biscuit):
http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/podcast.html
Graham
Ragnar
>
>
> If you really want to listen to some verbal legerdemain, go to the
> following CBC site and scroll down to the Eagleton interview (Karen
> Armstrong was on last week and was just as obfusc but Eagleton takes the
> biscuit):
> http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/podcast.html
>
> Graham
Excellent link. The old Theology Argument raises its ugly head again;
"Dawkins knows less about Theology than a Theology Freshman therefore he is
unqualified to attack religion"
R.
Christopher A. Lee
<use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote:
>Interesting Ian wrote:
>>
>> I'm not responding to any morons who think that atheism means a
>> lack of a belief.
>>
>Regrettable. Since that is exactly what atheist means.
He knows - he's been here before.
>[snip]
>>
>> You would only lack a belief one way or the other if you had no
>> idea what is meant by "God", have never considered the question and
>> wouldn't know where to start in thinking about such an issue.
Which is a straw man.
>I can think of many reasons why one would not believe. However, to go
>back to your original post, that is not the issue, since it is *your*
>responsibility to show why you *do* believe.
He doesn't seem to understand that it's only a question inside the
theist paradigm.
Which theists daren't have but seem to expect everybody else to.
In my case I wasn't raised to be theist.
I had loved Kipling's Just-So stories which were fun, silly
explanations for things like how the leopard got his spots, with
talking animals and magicians doing things to them. They were even
broadcast on BBC's Children's Hour program.
Then came the Greek and other myths. Where it became obvious that
whether or not they knew they were just-so stories, they were
primitive people who believed in the beings doing the magic things.
understanding of gods from.
Both these were before I encountered Christians. Gods were something
primitive people believed, performed rituals of supplication around,
told just-so stories to explain what they didn't understand, etc.
So when I crossed paths with my first Christian (my class teacher) in
the juniors at primary school, gods were already characters in
mythology not things that could or could not exist.
It never crossed my mind that I was meant to take it seriously, and
was astonished by her reaction.
I have no idea what Kipling's religious beliefs were, but I can hardly
imagine somebody seriously Christian writing the Just-So stories. His
other novels seem to imply that he went along with the Christianity of
the day though.
I don't remember any outcry against them, like there is against Harry
Potter because some Christians are scared their kids will see the
Christian stories in the same light
>> Now granted this seems to be the case for everyone on here that I
>> have read so far. But that being so you cannot label yourselves
>> "atheists".
>>
>No, Ian - you are not permitted to redefine words and define us
>according to your own, misleading, terms.
I want to know what he imagines we are.
Because I for one am not agnostic - I've nothing to be agnostic about.
Believing it exists, believing it doesn't and not knowing aren't the
only alternatives.
I'm simply somebody who isn't theist and cannot be described
accurately according to presumptions that don't even apply to me. Let
alone the rationalisations using them for a position I don't have.
Christopher A. Lee
>>>> Bertrand Russell failed to understand too.
>>>
>>>Really?? You put yourself above one of the greatest intellects of the
>>>20th
>>>Century?
>>
>> He should have explained why both Ragnar and Russell were wrong.
>>
>> It's all about the claimant's burden of proof, or at least justifying
>> their claim.
>>
>> Until they do that, the assumption is that it is false. At most it
>> remains in the realm of "somebody says/believes/claims something".
>>
>> This isn't any kind of counter-claim, belief or any of the other
>> things too many people imagine. Just the way unsupported claims are
>> handled.
>>
>> The problem is that they imagine gods are exempt from this, before
>> they have demonstrated their existence to be exempt. It's the fallacy
>> of special pleading.
>
>If you really want to listen to some verbal legerdemain, go to the following
>CBC site and scroll down to the Eagleton interview (Karen Armstrong was on
>last week and was just as obfusc but Eagleton takes the biscuit):
>http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/podcast.html
>
>Graham
Thanks for the link. Armstrong is normally sensible, for example her
book on the history of God which shows how the beliefs evolved.
I've never seen any honest review of Dawkins' work. Do people like
Eagleton fool anybody except the believers his crap was intended for?
graham
> I've never seen any honest review of Dawkins' work. Do people like
> Eagleton fool anybody except the believers his crap was intended for?
Judging by the letters that the presenter read the following week, NO!
I've heard Eagleton several times and he *never* presents any logical
argument for his side - he just pooh-poohs the atheists' position with a few
choice witticisms. In fact, all the "flea" books that have come out are
essentially the same.
BTW IDiots were handing out Ray Comfort's "edition" of Origin yesterday at
the Uni. of Calgary. A biologist is giving a pro-Darwin seminar this pm to
counter their efforts.
Graham
Ian Smith
> "Ian Smith" <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
> news:gJmdnQfWtsCyfZbW...@brightview.co.uk...
>> Interesting Ian wrote:
>>
>>> Bertrand Russell failed to understand too. As I said atheists think
>>> of "God" as an entity within the world. This is completely daft in
>>> the extreme.
>>
>> Firstly, I've never seen any atheist claim that.
>
> It is implicit in everything that atheists say.
Well, that is such patent nonsense that we can simply ignore it.
Are you serious about wanting to debate here?
>>
>> Secondly - where is your evidence? You seem to be making all sorts of
>> categorical statements about what 'god' is, or is not ...
>
> Where's my evidence for what precisely? That God is not a thing
> existing within reality? Where are these pixels corresponding to "God"?
>
Your begging a further question simply indicates that you have no
answer.
> God is not a thing existing within reality
Put up or shut up time. Where is your evidence to support this
statement?
regards, Ian
Interesting Ian
>
> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:dC%Om.32024$492....@newsfe18.ams2...
>
>
> <snip>
>> you are making this crass error in supposing that the existence of a
>> designer is a scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific hypothesis,
>> rather it is a *metaphysical* hypothesis.
> <snip/>
>
> As I suspected, you are firmly in the 'Non-overlapping Magisteria' school
> of Stephen Jay Gould. Unfortunately your position is impossible to argue;
> any attempt to confute it through scientific logic is doomed , because
> according to NOMA science has no authority in metaphysical matters.
Of course it hasn't. Philosophical arguments are required eg Aquinas'
arguments.
Now where are your arguments that the existence of any sort of "God" is
unlikely? If you don't have any why do you subscribe to atheism??
Christopher A. Lee
They're silly.
When I was at university 40 years ago :-( there was a god-squad but
they were a joke. But that was in the UK where the religious are less
fundamentalist. There were plenty of mainstream believers but they
were pretty normal.
It's just plain stupid to give out Comfort's book in a place full of
educated and intelligent people.
It's like Harun Yahyah sending his book to thousands of prominent
geneticists, biologists, palaeontologists etc to show them the error
of their ways.
They're trying to change the minds of people who know far more about
it than they do, using methods that only work on the ignorant and
gullible.
>Graham
>
PG
durrg5lcc09c0e814...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:14:40 -0700, "graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> When I was at university 40 years ago :-( there was a god-squad but
> they were a joke. But that was in the UK where the religious are less
> fundamentalist. There were plenty of mainstream believers but they
> were pretty normal.
When I was at uni in the 70s, I remember a visit from a couple of fundie
doorknockers. There was discussion of orbiting teapots and the like that
went right over their gullible, brain-washed heads. On beating a retreat,
there was a deliberately loud 'private' exchange for my benefit: "He's lost,
that one, I afraid", said one. I retorted equally loudly "you're both so
lost that you couldn't find the gents in the union bar". Could have done
better I'm sure, but I mention it because it once one of those early key
moments in life when you realise you are on the right track, and that the
basis for these beliefs is built entirely on sand. To date, 35 years on,
each successive encounter with the religious of all hues has done nothing
but help to solidify my lack of belief. I haven't heard, read, or been able
to imagine a single reason in my own right, for giving any of these beliefs
the slightest credence. Matrix was about the only thing to make me think
twice for a second or two ;-)
pg
PG
news: PzgPm.11351$Lu6....@newsfe05.ams2...
> "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:0UbPm.61414$KP1....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> unlikely? If you don't have any why do you subscribe to atheism??
Atheists conside the likelihood of anything along monotheistic to deistic
lines to stretch from incredibly improbable, to highly unlikely; the
supporting reasons have been cited here ad relative infinitum, so do a
search if you wish to be reminded of them. The possibility therefore that
each and every metaphysical expanation is in fact accurate remains. Using
your logic, would you therefore have us believe in everything, from flying
spaghetti monsters to orbiting teapots to Odin to Allah?
pg
Christopher A. Lee
<spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:0UbPm.61414$KP1....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>
>> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:dC%Om.32024$492....@newsfe18.ams2...
>>
>> <snip>
>>> you are making this crass error in supposing that the existence of a
>>> designer is a scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific hypothesis,
>>> rather it is a *metaphysical* hypothesis.
>> <snip/>
>>
>> As I suspected, you are firmly in the 'Non-overlapping Magisteria' school
>> of Stephen Jay Gould. Unfortunately your position is impossible to argue;
>> any attempt to confute it through scientific logic is doomed , because
>> according to NOMA science has no authority in metaphysical matters.
>
>Of course it hasn't. Philosophical arguments are required eg Aquinas'
>arguments.
Which are utterly worthless.
As is metaphysics.
>Now where are your arguments that the existence of any sort of "God" is
>unlikely? If you don't have any why do you subscribe to atheism??
Nobody "subscribes" to atheism any more than YOU subscribe to not
believing in the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
But then you already know this and are just trolling.
Interesting Ian
> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> a �crit dans le message de
> news: PzgPm.11351$Lu6....@newsfe05.ams2...
>> "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>> news:0UbPm.61414$KP1....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>
>> Now where are your arguments that the existence of any sort of "God" is
>> unlikely? If you don't have any why do you subscribe to atheism??
>
> Atheists conside the likelihood of anything along monotheistic to deistic
> lines to stretch from incredibly improbable, to highly unlikely; the
> supporting reasons have been cited here ad relative infinitum, so do a
> search if you wish to be reminded of them.
I don't believe there are any arguments from atheists.
The possibility therefore that
> each and every metaphysical expanation is in fact accurate remains. Using
> your logic, would you therefore have us believe in everything, from flying
> spaghetti monsters to orbiting teapots to Odin to Allah?
>
You really don't listen.
Interesting Ian
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:36:59 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
> <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>news:0UbPm.61414$KP1....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>
>>> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dC%Om.32024$492....@newsfe18.ams2...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> you are making this crass error in supposing that the existence of a
>>>> designer is a scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific
>>>> hypothesis,
>>>> rather it is a *metaphysical* hypothesis.
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>> As I suspected, you are firmly in the 'Non-overlapping Magisteria'
>>> school
>>> of Stephen Jay Gould. Unfortunately your position is impossible to
>>> argue;
>>> any attempt to confute it through scientific logic is doomed , because
>>> according to NOMA science has no authority in metaphysical matters.
>>
>>Of course it hasn't. Philosophical arguments are required eg Aquinas'
>>arguments.
>
> Which are utterly worthless.
Do you understand them? Dawkin's and co certainly don't.
>
> As is metaphysics.
>
>>Now where are your arguments that the existence of any sort of "God" is
>>unlikely? If you don't have any why do you subscribe to atheism??
>
> Nobody "subscribes" to atheism any more than YOU subscribe to not
> believing in the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
>
> But then you already know this and are just trolling.
>
Atheism tends to be associated with a family of metaphysical beliefs
regarding the world. No consciousness underlying reality as a whole, no
ultimate purpose to the Universe or our lives. We are merely complex
biological machines with consciousness being either a product of physical
proceses or identical to such processes. And so on and so forth.
Why subscribe to such a position?
PG
> "PG" <pg...@alpesprovence.net> wrote in message
> news:4b0e01b1$0$969$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> a �crit dans le message
>> de news: PzgPm.11351$Lu6....@newsfe05.ams2...
>>> "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0UbPm.61414$KP1....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>
>>> Now where are your arguments that the existence of any sort of "God" is
>>> unlikely? If you don't have any why do you subscribe to atheism??
>>
>> Atheists conside the likelihood of anything along monotheistic to deistic
>> lines to stretch from incredibly improbable, to highly unlikely; the
>> supporting reasons have been cited here ad relative infinitum, so do a
>> search if you wish to be reminded of them.
>
> I don't believe there are any arguments from atheists.
As you apparently believe in fairy stories, what you don't believe will
support our stance very well, thank you.
> The possibility therefore that
>> each and every metaphysical expanation is in fact accurate remains. Using
>> your logic, would you therefore have us believe in everything, from
>> flying spaghetti monsters to orbiting teapots to Odin to Allah?
>>
> You really don't listen.
It is the only logical conclusion. You ask that we provide arguments against
the existence of any sort of God. There are no arguments that can
categorically exclude the existence of any sort of deity, a position that
Dawkins holds too. The logical inference therefore is that we must believe
in them all, by your argument.
"I believe in Abundia, Aditi, Ambika, Annapuna, Aphrodite, Apollo, Arachne,
Aradia, Ariadne, Aries, Arianrhod, Artemis, Ashtoroth, Asmodeus, Astarte,
Athena, Banshee, Bast, Bean-nighe, Bechaud, Beelzebub,
....................................................................... ...
... ... .. .... .... ... and the Holy Ghost, Amen."
You really do talk complete bollox, don't you realise how silly you make
yourself look by virtue of you repeated straw men, unfounded assertions, and
twisted logic?
pg
Christopher A. Lee
<spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
You'll find we understand Aquinas' arguments perfectly. They boil down
to statements of belief. Just calling them proofs doesn't make them
so.
They attempt to generate information where there isn't any using
transparent fallacies.
For example by waffling backwards beyond where there is any knowledge,
stopping at an arbitrary point where there is no reason to and then
saying "this we call God" with any reason to.
It is something claimed by believers without any justification, to
people who don't share the same beliefs.
They hide behind it asserting its validity without ever demonstrating
it.
Until they do that, there is nothing to "not understand".
>> As is metaphysics.
>>
>>>Now where are your arguments that the existence of any sort of "God" is
>>>unlikely? If you don't have any why do you subscribe to atheism??
>>
>> Nobody "subscribes" to atheism any more than YOU subscribe to not
>> believing in the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
>>
>> But then you already know this and are just trolling.
>
>Atheism tends to be associated with a family of metaphysical beliefs
>regarding the world.
Only by pig-ignorant theists who can't see the world outside their
religion.
> No consciousness underlying reality as a whole, no
>ultimate purpose to the Universe or our lives. We are merely complex
>biological machines with consciousness being either a product of physical
>proceses or identical to such processes. And so on and so forth.
Only in the minds of religionists who have erected walls to keep out
the world beyond their religion, who invent emotionally prejudicial
falsehoods about people outside it which are a caricature opposite of
their own beliefs, and a straw man.
>Why subscribe to such a position?
Why lie about atheists, to atheists in an atheist ewsgroup?
Apart from trolling for flames?
graham
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:14:40 -0700, "graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> When I was at university 40 years ago :-( there was a god-squad but
> they were a joke. But that was in the UK where the religious are less
> fundamentalist. There were plenty of mainstream believers but they
> were pretty normal.
We are +/- contempories it seems and my experiences at uni were essentially
similar.
My ex was a member ofthe god-squad at KCL. There is a huge religious faculty
there although she was reading science. She finally saw the light but the
god squad would say that she moved over to the dark side!
We brought up our sons sensibly, teaching them to think critically and, as
adults, they have thanked us for not polluting their minds with all that
god-crap.
Graham
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> a �crit dans le message de
>news: y0tPm.133547$_o.8...@newsfe22.ams2...
>> "PG" <pg...@alpesprovence.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b0e01b1$0$969$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>>> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> a �crit dans le message
>>> de news: PzgPm.11351$Lu6....@newsfe05.ams2...
>>>> "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0UbPm.61414$KP1....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>>
>>>> Now where are your arguments that the existence of any sort of "God" is
>>>> unlikely? If you don't have any why do you subscribe to atheism??
>>>
>>> Atheists conside the likelihood of anything along monotheistic to deistic
>>> lines to stretch from incredibly improbable, to highly unlikely; the
>>> supporting reasons have been cited here ad relative infinitum, so do a
>>> search if you wish to be reminded of them.
>>
>> I don't believe there are any arguments from atheists.
>
>As you apparently believe in fairy stories, what you don't believe will
>support our stance very well, thank you.
The only "argument" needed is that when there is no reason to believe
something then one doesn't.
Which is more of an explanation not an argument.
None of the "reasons" believers give for believing hold water. They
are rationalisations using other parts off the same belief system
without any external justification.
The actual reason they believe is because it was implanted in
childhood.
In the real world there are methods for evaluating claims. One of
which the falsifiable default pending evidence.
Which in spite of what believers imagine isn't a belief or a counter
claim because the position is open to change when the evidence is
provided.
For some reason they ignore this part.
>> The possibility therefore that
>>> each and every metaphysical expanation is in fact accurate remains. Using
>>> your logic, would you therefore have us believe in everything, from
>>> flying spaghetti monsters to orbiting teapots to Odin to Allah?
>>>
>> You really don't listen.
<sound of irony meter imploding>
>It is the only logical conclusion. You ask that we provide arguments against
>the existence of any sort of God. There are no arguments that can
>categorically exclude the existence of any sort of deity, a position that
>Dawkins holds too. The logical inference therefore is that we must believe
>in them all, by your argument.
Actually there are, if the deity is defined in such a way that it is a
logical impossibility.
They resolve this by dismissing logic to get around the fact that
something cannot be X and ~X at the same time because that reduces to
zero.
Eg a god that caused a global flood than never happened cannot exist.
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:durrg5lcc09c0e814...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:14:40 -0700, "graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> When I was at university 40 years ago :-( there was a god-squad but
>> they were a joke. But that was in the UK where the religious are less
>> fundamentalist. There were plenty of mainstream believers but they
>> were pretty normal.
>
>We are +/- contempories it seems and my experiences at uni were essentially
>similar.
>My ex was a member ofthe god-squad at KCL.
King's College?
> There is a huge religious faculty
>there although she was reading science. She finally saw the light but the
>god squad would say that she moved over to the dark side!
It's hard for a god-squadder to do science. The mindset is so
different.
graham
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:13:53 -0700, "graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:durrg5lcc09c0e814...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:14:40 -0700, "graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> When I was at university 40 years ago :-( there was a god-squad but
>>> they were a joke. But that was in the UK where the religious are less
>>> fundamentalist. There were plenty of mainstream believers but they
>>> were pretty normal.
>>
>>We are +/- contempories it seems and my experiences at uni were
>>essentially
>>similar.
>>My ex was a member ofthe god-squad at KCL.
>
> King's College?
Yes.
>
>> There is a huge religious
>> faculty
>>there although she was reading science. She finally saw the light but the
>>god squad would say that she moved over to the dark side!
>
> It's hard for a god-squadder to do science. The mindset is so
> different.
It was rather strange in that her parents were a staunch anglicans and her
father was also a brilliant scientist. Their other daughter rejected
religion in her early teens.
Christopher A. Lee
Most Anglicans aren't god-bots. They seem to partition their minds
between church mode and the real world. Which also lets them
understand why people outside their religion aren't particuarly
interested.
That's what let Darwin do his work, He didn't become agnostic until
later, although his discovery was a contributing factor.
I had a friend whose wife did a joint music/religion degree at Hull.
She originally wanted music and some thething else but the other
course was cancelled and the only thing left was
divinity/theology/whatever.
They taught it in terms of beliefs, historical context etc. Apparently
it wasn't what some of the god-bots expected and they had breakdowns
because they couldn't cope with the mental conflict.
PG
>> That is a pathetic analogy. It falls down at several levels.
>>
>> Firstly we, the 'creators' in question, are NOT gods. We are as physical
>> and fragile as the hypothetical intelligent bots in your game. Your
>> analogy collapses on this basis alone. Anyway - to have a little fun...
>
> First of all those who subscribe to the existence of a "God" are unlikely
> to believe that we are physical. That is to say they are not likely to be
> materialists/physicalists And don't get hung up on the word "God". What
> about the hypothesis that the Universe is a creation of super-intelligent
> aliens who of course do not exist within such a toy Universe anymore than
> a computer games programmer exists within the game he creates.
Your hypothetical bot designers ARE aliens (to them), you fool. Obviously
that is a possibility, it's implicit in your original daft so-called
'analogy'.
>> In this case the bots would be quite right to come to the conclusion of a
>> designed world, as far as their immediate environment goes at least, so
>> long as they don't add unsupported theories about alleged supernatural
>> powers being involved.
>
> The game environment operates according to rules just as our world
> operates according to physical laws. You should not suppose though that
> either you or 21st Century science has a full and complete knowledge of
> such physical laws.
Can't you give the straw men a rest? You really do make yourself appear like
a freshman pretending to have a PhD. Where, in this entire thread, has
anyone suggested 21st century knowledge is the be all and end all of
understanding? Strewth, you really don't have a clue, do you.
pg
graham
> I had a friend whose wife did a joint music/religion degree at Hull.
> She originally wanted music and some thething else but the other
> course was cancelled and the only thing left was
> divinity/theology/whatever.
>
> They taught it in terms of beliefs, historical context etc. Apparently
> it wasn't what some of the god-bots expected and they had breakdowns
> because they couldn't cope with the mental conflict.
I can understand that! It's truly amazing how ignorant they are oftheir own
religion.
Some 20 years ago I was reading a lot of Yiddish literature (in translation,
of course) after Singer was awarded the Nobel. The local Orthodox Rabbi
gave a course on the rise of xtianity at the local community college and as
this intrigued me, I signed up. The rest of the class was comprised of
staunch xtians, many of them born agains etc and I was the lone atheist.
The rabbi was really good and dissected xtianity showing how much of the
mythology was based on normal, everyday jewish life and, of course, this
really unsettled the rest of the class. Although orthodox, he had read and
studied the NT several times. Whenever they raised a point about the OT, he
would say: "Let's go back to the original" and he would then translate
directly from the Hebrew thus correcting their versions. That unsettled
them even more!
Interesting Ian
Why don't you read my posts for crying out loud! Russells teapot is
analogous to our bot friends supposing the designer is a few colured pixels
in the game environment.
As I continually keep saying, you guys (as well as people like Russel and
Dawkins) have the most simplistic conception of "God" there can be. It is
little wonder you are all atheists!
Christopher A. Lee
No, moron. It is an illustration that there is zip, zero, zilch, nada
reason to take it seriously.
Which word are you pretending you didn't understand?
>As I continually keep saying, you guys (as well as people like Russel and
>Dawkins) have the most simplistic conception of "God" there can be. It is
>little wonder you are all atheists!
As you continually keep lying.....
Now crawl back into the woodwork and stop trolling.
Interesting Ian
You really are a seriously *stupid* person.
Christopher A. Lee
<spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>pixel in the game environment.
What a fucking moron.
>> No, moron. It is an illustration that there is zip, zero, zilch, nada
>> reason to take it seriously.
>>
>You really are a seriously *stupid* person.
You really are a liar and an idiot.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
He's trolling. He started the thread with a question that was answered
and then went off on all sorts of mental masturbation, red herrings,
straw men and insults.
>pg
>
PG
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:5putg517pnr6jnr3u...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:46:38 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
>> <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> He should have explained why both Ragnar and Russell were wrong.
>>>
>>>Why don't you read my posts for crying out loud! Russells teapot is
>>>analogous to our bot friends supposing the designer is a few colured
>>>pixels
>>>in the game environment.
>>
>> No, moron. It is an illustration that there is zip, zero, zilch, nada
>> reason to take it seriously.
>
> You really are a seriously *stupid* person.
If he's a stupid person, then that places you somewhere between a potato and
a cabbage in the brain chain, given your particularly infantile logic in
recent threads here. Your bot analogy failed completely, as has been pointed
out to you.
And why push your blog in a sig, when all it contains are some wishy-washy
half-baked meanderings of a confused mind?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Because he's trolling. He asked the question, dismissed the answers
and told atheists we didn't know what atheism was.
graham
You and Dave in Lake Villa are obviously vying for the position of village
idiot!
sdm_sax
wrote:
> Of course they don't. The concept of "God" is beyond human understanding.
If that is so, how can you possibly say that there is one???
sdm_sax
wrote:
> As I continually keep saying, you guys (as well as people like Russel and
> Dawkins) have the most simplistic conception of "God" there can be. It is
> little wonder you are all atheists!
I don't have a concept of a god. What is frustrating is that every
different denomination or religion has a differing view of what god
is. You say he is outside this universe, others say he is in all of
us. There are so many different ideas I don't think anyone really
knows. You seem to be very sure about something you cannot, by your
definition, have any knowledge of. To you it is impossible to have any
relationship with god which is something the protestants have been
saying you can have.
I look to historical views of god, from sun worshippers to
omnitheistic religions of the ancient Greek and Romans through to
monotheistic modern religions. They have had many different concepts
of god, not just yours which you seem to think is the right one.
I was recently in conversation with a Scientologist. I don't really
accept them as a proper religion. Then I started thinking what is the
difference? All religions belief in some bizarre tale which beggars
belief (!) One man's religion is another man's crazy.
I don't think any believer in god knows what he's talking about.
Regardless of where, when, what or who, theists are guessing or making
it up. I don't subscribe to their fiction. That is what makes me an
atheist, not any set of values that an atheist may adopt.
PG
60dd553f-c593-406b...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Asked him a similar question twice; but being the coward that he is he's
done his usual hit and run without facing up to the tough questions.
pg
Jim Hawkins
>
>>
>> I personally think that the evidence in support of a Christian-style
>> deity is highly improbable.
>
>
> So what? Atheists do not merely disbelieve in *Christian* conceptions of
> "God" but any "God" whatsoever.
>
>
>> Nonsense. I've been a contributor to a Christian newsgroup for years, and
>> even the believers there can't remotely agree what is meant by "God".
>
>
> Of course they don't. The concept of "God" is beyond human understanding.
>
>
Gods are a human concept. How can they be beyond human understanding ?
Jim Hawkins
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
It's one of their dishonest copouts to avoid answering the question
they beg, that begs it again.
What surprises me is that they expect it to fool anybody.
>
Interesting Ian
news:60dd553f-c593-406b...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I state there is?
Interesting Ian
news:arudnbUmbLoPqIHW...@supernews.com...
If "God" exists it can't be merely a human concept.
Christopher A. Lee
If pigs had wings they might fly.
Jim Hawkins
If gods don't exist they are clearly only a human concept.
None of the assorted multitude of gods that human beings have postulated
down the ages has been found to exist. Those gods (at least) are therefore
mythical concepts of humans.
Giving something a name, like 'god', is only meaningful if you have some
means of recognizing and distinguishing it from other things. It needs some
sort of defining description.
Even if you choose to define 'god' in a way that is all-embracing ('ultimate
goodness', 'creator of the universe', or whatever) you are postulating human
concepts (goodness, creativity) with which to be able hopefully to recognize
one if it turned up.
We cannot prove that gods don't exist. But it's so hugely unlikely that
we'd better save our breath to cool our porridge.
Jim Hawkins
Javi
>>>
>>>> Nonsense. I've been a contributor to a Christian newsgroup for
>>>> years, and
>>>> even the believers there can't remotely agree what is meant by "God".
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course they don't. The concept of "God" is beyond human
>>> understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gods are a human concept. How can they be beyond human understanding ?
>>
>> Jim Hawkins
>
> If "God" exists it can't be merely a human concept.
But it doesn't exist, so, it's only a human concept. The proof is the
huge amount of different gods and goddesses that have been invented
along the history. And there aren't two cultures that agree on this point.
Interesting Ian
news:hfk4pf$1k2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Like the bots in a computer game quarreling about the name and personality
of the programmer! One lot say I don't believe in Tom, Dick and Harry. The
designer is called Dave and he has this type of personality. Another lots
say I don't believe in Tom, Dick and Dave. The designer is called Harry and
he has this type of personality. Another lots say I don't believe in Dick,
Dave and Harry. The designer is called Tom and he has this type of
personality. Blah blah blah.
And then of course we have the atheist bots! They don't believe that their
reality (game environment) has any designer at all. It just popped into
being all by itself. However they try to make out their position is very
similar to the theist bots by saying they don't believe in either Tom, Dick,
Harry or Dave, and it's just believing in one less designer than anyone
else!
graham
Graham
Christopher A. Lee
I just wish these idiots understood the concept of not giving somebody
else's religious belief a thought unless they bring it up, instead of
inventing emotionally prejudicial positions for us that presume it.
graham
If you read his profile on his website, asynaptic goes along way to describe
the fool.
Graham
Christopher A. Lee
[on Ian Inkster]
>> I just wish these idiots understood the concept of not giving somebody
>> else's religious belief a thought unless they bring it up, instead of
>> inventing emotionally prejudicial positions for us that presume it.
>
>If you read his profile on his website, asynaptic goes along way to describe
>the fool.
>Graham
You're right. I rarely follow links in usenet posts unless it's for a
specific recommended page. That's why.
Javi
>>>
>>> If "God" exists it can't be merely a human concept.
>>
>> But it doesn't exist, so, it's only a human concept. The proof is the
>> huge amount of different gods and goddesses that have been invented
>> along the history. And there aren't two cultures that agree on this
>> point.
>
>
>
> Like the bots in a computer game quarreling about the name and
> personality of the programmer! One lot say I don't believe in Tom, Dick
> and Harry. The designer is called Dave and he has this type of
> personality. Another lots say I don't believe in Tom, Dick and Dave.
> The designer is called Harry and he has this type of personality.
> Another lots say I don't believe in Dick, Dave and Harry. The designer
> is called Tom and he has this type of personality. Blah blah blah.
>
> And then of course we have the atheist bots! They don't believe that
> their reality (game environment) has any designer at all. It just
> popped into being all by itself. However they try to make out their
> position is very similar to the theist bots by saying they don't believe
> in either Tom, Dick, Harry or Dave, and it's just believing in one less
> designer than anyone else!
So you are saying that god is totally nonsense, since each "bot" as you
call them is saying totally different things, each one incompatible with
each other. Your god is schizofrenic.
sdm_sax
wrote:
> "sdm_sax" <stev...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
"> I personally think that the evidence in support of a Christian-
style deity
> is highly improbable.
So what? Atheists do not merely disbelieve in *Christian* conceptions
of
"God" but any "God" whatsoever.
> Nonsense. I've been a contributor to a Christian newsgroup for years, and
> even the believers there can't remotely agree what is meant by "God".
Of course they don't. The concept of "God" is beyond human
understanding. "
It was here in this thread. Now try and answer.
sdm_sax
wrote:
> > Gods are a human concept. How can they be beyond human understanding ?
>
> > Jim Hawkins
>
> If "God" exists it can't be merely a human concept.
Our only experience of god is as a human concept. Gods don't exist in
reality, only in fiction.
J D@home.com Mark J D
>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
would actually read as follows:
>> But
[[[...now that science has looked on mountaintops and above the clouds, and
out into space,
and not found the Jehovah that the ancient Jews heard and saw and spoke to,
we've had to
re-define God in a way that explains why he wasn't anywhere we looked;
therefore we now
insist that...]]]
>> "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object existing
>> alongside other objects in the world
[[[...Because if we continued to say what we always used to say, we'd now
have to regard
God as a failed hypothesis, and give it up as a silly idea. And we simply
can't do that...]]].
HTH...
M.
PG
K24Wm.3593$2u1....@newsfe16.ams2...
Exactly. I've been saying as much on the Christian ng ukrc for a while, and
it irks them of course. I usually receive a flow of ad hominems in response
from fundies, or am told by liberals that scripture was only allegorical in
the first place (my translation : 'pick 'n mix' theology), or that I simply
don't understand, or that I tar liberals with the fundamentalist brush, or
other variations on the wriggling theme.
pg
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
This one did it deliberately to troll for flames.
duke
>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>
>This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
>then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
>would actually read as follows:
Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians worldwide,
and 191:1 in the US.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
PG
toaii598smrud08id...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
>>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>>
>>This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
>>then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
>>would actually read as follows:
>
> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians
> worldwide,
> and 191:1 in the US.
Source?
You may be right about the US, it'll take a fair number of them a while to
enter the 21st century and realise that the first man on Earth wasn't Adam,
a mere 6,000 years ago. Though if your stats regarding the US are as
exaggerated as the Christian/atheist ratio, that figure too is probably way
out.
This study suggests that the 'non-religious' comprise as much as 16% of the
world's population:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
But whatever, it's quality, not quantity that counts, and the fact that
religions are widespread makes no useful statement about the authenticity of
religious beliefs. The fact that gullibility is endemic, on the other hand,
does.
pg
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
>toaii598smrud08id...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
>>>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>>>
>>>This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
>>>then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
>>>would actually read as follows:
>>
>> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians
>> worldwide, and 191:1 in the US.
Puke is talkingthrough his rectal orifice, because what makes it the
default is that theism has to be taught. Children who aren't taight
tio be theist grow up not believing in any god or gods - which makes
them atheist.
>Source?
>
>You may be right about the US, it'll take a fair number of them a while to
>enter the 21st century and realise that the first man on Earth wasn't Adam,
>a mere 6,000 years ago. Though if your stats regarding the US are as
>exaggerated as the Christian/atheist ratio, that figure too is probably way
>out.
Probably. China has about a fifth of the World population, and most
Chinese would seem to be some flavour atheist.
>This study suggests that the 'non-religious' comprise as much as 16% of the
>world's population:
>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
>
>But whatever, it's quality, not quantity that counts, and the fact that
>religions are widespread makes no useful statement about the authenticity of
>religious beliefs. The fact that gullibility is endemic, on the other hand,
>does.
Puke imagines that the majority believing something somehow makes it
true.
>pg
>
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> >>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
> >
> >This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> >then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> >would actually read as follows:
>
> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians
> worldwide,
> and 191:1 in the US.
The non-theist (rather than anti-theist) form of atheism, which tends to
overlap agnosticism, is the perfectly reasonable default position of
refusing to believe what cannot be proven.
Both anti-theists (there are no gods) and the theist (there is a god)
are claiming belief in what they cannot prove, which is hardly a proper
default position, but the non-theist makes no claim of belief at all.
sdm_sax
> Both anti-theists (there are no gods) and the theist (there is a god)
> are claiming belief in what they cannot prove, which is hardly a proper
> default position, but the non-theist makes no claim of belief at all.
I think the problem lies with religion and its failoure to admit it
doesn't really know god.
AS I've mentioned before the most worshipped god was the sun which
certainly exists. It provides light and life and so on. With the
radition from the sun passing through, the sun is in all of us.
Man recognised the power and might of the sun and saw it had an
important role in controlling life on earth.
All that anthropamorphic stuff giving god sentience is clearly
rubbish.
I thhnk atheists should acknowledge the sun and recognise we don't
need to worship it or talk to it.
(yes, I know)
Javi
Christians are outnumbered 3:1 against non-Christian.
Also, the truth isn't democratic. If most people believed that the sky is
purple, what color would be the sky?
Virgil
<6f0f45d9-1bde-4424...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
sdm_sax <ste...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
There are all sorts of things that I acknowledge as being things.
Some of them on which the quality of my life depends.
None of them do I regard as gods.
bob young
duke wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> >>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
> >
> >This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> >then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> >would actually read as follows:
>
> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians worldwide,
> and 191:1 in the US.
Which simply proves that the brain damaged outnumber those who remain sane by 191:1
Nice try Dook, but as ever - you fail again
Oh and you forgot to mention the Muslims around the owrld and the Hindus
bob young
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:22:22 +0100, "PG" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> a ιcrit dans le message de news:
> >toaii598smrud08id...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> >>>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
> >>>
> >>>This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> >>>then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> >>>would actually read as follows:
> >>
> >> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians
> >> worldwide, and 191:1 in the US.
>
> Puke is talkingthrough his rectal orifice, because what makes it the
> default is that theism has to be taught. Children who aren't taight
> tio be theist grow up not believing in any god or gods - which makes
> them atheist.
Indeed.
Had Duke the misfortune to have been orphaned at age two and then been adopted
by a Hindu family - he would probably still be here. Only now propagating the
merits of the god Ganesh - he is the one that has a fat man's body and the head
of an elephant. Don't scoff duke, religions are full of silly nonsense of this
ilk, yours included. Just ask for examples and we will oblige
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind,
an escape from life's realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
bob young
Virgil wrote:
Without the 'theist' example that you give above
there would be NO atheists. . . . !
A definition for you:
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
bob young
sdm_sax wrote:
> On 16 Dec, 20:16, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > Both anti-theists (there are no gods) and the theist (there is a god)
> > are claiming belief in what they cannot prove, which is hardly a proper
> > default position, but the non-theist makes no claim of belief at all.
>
> I think the problem lies with religion and its failoure to admit it
> doesn't really know god.
> AS I've mentioned before the most worshipped god was the sun which
> certainly exists. It provides light and life and so on. With the
> radition from the sun passing through, the sun is in all of us.
> Man recognised the power and might of the sun and saw it had an
> important role in controlling life on earth.
The problem with sun worship was the presence of it could not be
maniptulated by priests. Probably why is was allowed to die out
Yap
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> >>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>
> >This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> >then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> >would actually read as follows:
>
> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians worldwide,
> and 191:1 in the US.
whether you like it or not.
This will come along since more education will help to eliminate blind
teaching and unfulfilled following.