info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
atheism is a faith ...
418 views
Skip to first unread message
Dale
Feb 26, 2015, 10:00:16 PM2/26/15
to
does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
--
(my whereabouts below)
http://www.dalekelly.org
Ray Martinez
Feb 26, 2015, 10:30:14 PM2/26/15
to
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 7:00:16 PM UTC-8, Dale wrote:
> Does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> If atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not exist. Moreover, Atheism is falsifiable; hence the existence of Christianity. Before we were Christians we were Atheists living as if no God exists.
Ray
> Does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> If atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not exist. Moreover, Atheism is falsifiable; hence the existence of Christianity. Before we were Christians we were Atheists living as if no God exists.
Ray
Josh Miles
Feb 26, 2015, 10:35:14 PM2/26/15
to
On 2/26/2015 8:56 PM, Dale wrote:
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
This *again*?
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Roger Shrubber
Feb 26, 2015, 10:40:14 PM2/26/15
to
Dale wrote:
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
It's like this Dale. For certain specific descriptions of
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
_God_, there are claims made that requires certain evidence.
For example, a very literal interpretation of Genesis that
requires a global flood requires evidence that such a
flood occurred. We have evidence that such a flood did not
occur. We have evidence that the specific God described
by a literal interpretation of Genesis does not exist.
One can edit the notion of God in ways that do not
require any specific evidence, and thus cannot be refuted
by evidence. Such gods remain possible. However, the process
of trying to find a way to have a god that does not have
any evidence against it, or can't have evidence against it
is a rather transparent attempt to get past evidence. So
it isn't compelling in the least. Thus, people may well
decide that there's no point in believing in such a contrived
entity. Not believing makes one an atheist. One doesn't have
to actively assert that god cannot exist. In fact, only
a subset of atheists assert that.
And for most reasonable interpretations of the word,
agnostic is simply saying that one does not know. It's
possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist and
all possible combinations.
Inez
Feb 27, 2015, 12:20:14 AM2/27/15
to
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 7:00:16 PM UTC-8, Dale wrote:
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
I don't have absolute proof that God doesn't exist, but I do have evidence. Mostly it is a lifetime experience of God not ever being detectable in any way. The act of existing leaves evidence.
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>
Earle Jones27
Feb 27, 2015, 1:05:14 AM2/27/15
to
On 2015-02-27 02:56:30 +0000, Dale said:
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
*
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
earle
*
wpih...@gmail.com
Feb 27, 2015, 1:10:13 AM2/27/15
to
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:30:14 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not exist. Moreover, Atheism is falsifiable; hence the existence of Christianity. Before we were Christians we were Atheists living as if no God exists.
Except for the bit between "All" and "exists" (which is nonsense)
> All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not exist. Moreover, Atheism is falsifiable; hence the existence of Christianity. Before we were Christians we were Atheists living as if no God exists.
perfectly correct.
-William Hughes
J. J. Lodder
Feb 27, 2015, 1:35:14 AM2/27/15
to
Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
We went over that before.
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
The problem lies with you, because 'faith'
is the only category you recognise.
If everything is a faith, then yes, everything is a faith,
Jan
*Hemidactylus*
Feb 27, 2015, 2:40:13 AM2/27/15
to
On 02/26/2015 10:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 7:00:16 PM UTC-8, Dale wrote:
>> Does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>
>> If atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>>
>> --
>> (my whereabouts below)
>> http://www.dalekelly.org
>
> All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not exist.
If two atheists existed who were evolutionists you would have two
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 7:00:16 PM UTC-8, Dale wrote:
>> Does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>
>> If atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>>
>> --
>> (my whereabouts below)
>> http://www.dalekelly.org
>
> All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not exist.
evolutionists that don't believe in God. If you had 100 scientists who
were evolutionists yet believed in God, as theistic evolutionists, your
claims are refuted. Are all evolutionists atheists? Think about it.
Peter Nyikos allegedly supports evolutionary theory, but one can doubt
his sincerity. But if he does, he is hardly a case in point that God
does not exist. He seems to wish God true like you.
> Moreover, Atheism is falsifiable; hence the existence of Christianity.
puts the burden upon you for one. I assume the FSM exists. Refute me.
Atheism is more about not accepting BS claims lacking evidence.
> Before we were Christians we were Atheists living as if no God exists.
Are Zoroastrians atheists? Ancient Greek polytheists?
Sneaky O. Possum
Feb 27, 2015, 10:10:14 AM2/27/15
to
Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in news:88lbu0....@news.alt.net:
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
Why? Did you want to borrow some?
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'waiting for evidence.' Evidence that God
doesn't exist, or evidence that he does?
Personally, I'm not waiting for either. If any sort of god exists, it
exists outside of my knowledge and perception: for all practical purposes,
it doesn't matter to me whether it exists or not, so I don't worry about
it. If a god decides to make its presence known to me, I'll adjust my
assumptions about reality accordingly.
--
S.O.P.
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
doesn't exist, or evidence that he does?
Personally, I'm not waiting for either. If any sort of god exists, it
exists outside of my knowledge and perception: for all practical purposes,
it doesn't matter to me whether it exists or not, so I don't worry about
it. If a god decides to make its presence known to me, I'll adjust my
assumptions about reality accordingly.
--
S.O.P.
wpih...@gmail.com
Feb 27, 2015, 11:10:03 AM2/27/15
to
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any evidence
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not exist.
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
-William Hughes
John Bode
Feb 27, 2015, 12:45:03 PM2/27/15
to
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 9:00:16 PM UTC-6, Dale wrote:
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
Some claim to; I'm not one of them.
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
Absent *poisitive* evidence for the existence of God (and it would have to
be pretty obvious - I've used the example of a giant Vanna White smiting
television executives with giant letter blocks before), I see no reason
to believe.
The idea of a disembodied intelligence creating the universe out of sheer
will is no less fantastic than the notion that the universe arose
from purely naturalistic methods.
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
position that the nature of God is *unknowable* (at least the version
I was taught).
wpih...@gmail.com
Feb 27, 2015, 1:10:04 PM2/27/15
to
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-4, John Bode wrote:
> Agnositicism is more than just a position of "I don't know". It's a
> position that the nature of God is *unknowable* (at least the version
> I was taught).
One problem is that there are many overlapping definitions
> Agnositicism is more than just a position of "I don't know". It's a
> position that the nature of God is *unknowable* (at least the version
> I was taught).
of theist, atheist and agnostic floating around. To the
crank of course there is only one correct definition
and this does not need to be stated nor should "incorrect"
definitions be respected. Non-cranks are
advised to state their definitions, thus avoiding many
pointless arguments
-William Hughes
Mark Isaak
Feb 27, 2015, 1:30:03 PM2/27/15
to
On 2/26/15 6:56 PM, Dale wrote:
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
Depends on the God. There are some gods for which I have evidence that
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
they do not exist, others which evidence supports, and still others for
which evidence is lacking one way or the other.
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
(Hint: No, it doesn't.)
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel
Bob Casanova
Feb 27, 2015, 1:30:03 PM2/27/15
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 02:56:30 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Dale
<da...@dalekelly.org>:
>does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
Only the lack of evidence that He does, which is shared by
all, not only atheists. Believers (actual believers, not the
sort of apologists who usually post here) recognize that,
but believe anyway.
>if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
No. Like many, you have a mistaken idea of the meaning of
"agnostic". It doesn't mean "weak atheist", it means,
literally, one who believes that there is not, and will
never be, evidence either way. Agnostics can range from
strongly religious to atheist, only the belief that there
is, and will be, no evidence is required. From the OED:
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known
of the existence or nature of God"
IOW, it's about belief in the limits of knowledge, not about
belief or non-belief in a deity.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Dale
<da...@dalekelly.org>:
>does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
all, not only atheists. Believers (actual believers, not the
sort of apologists who usually post here) recognize that,
but believe anyway.
>if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
"agnostic". It doesn't mean "weak atheist", it means,
literally, one who believes that there is not, and will
never be, evidence either way. Agnostics can range from
strongly religious to atheist, only the belief that there
is, and will be, no evidence is required. From the OED:
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known
of the existence or nature of God"
IOW, it's about belief in the limits of knowledge, not about
belief or non-belief in a deity.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
Feb 27, 2015, 1:35:04 PM2/27/15
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
stac...@gmail.com
Feb 27, 2015, 1:45:03 PM2/27/15
to
On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 7:00:16 PM UTC-8, Dale wrote:
> Does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> If atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
There is a difference between atheists and agnostics. The difference is
belief of god(s) and knowledge of god(s).
An atheist (a-theist) does not believe god(s) exist and agnostics
(a-gnostic) does not know if god(s) exist. There can be many combinations of atheist, theist, gnostic, and agnostic to describe people's approach to god(s).
I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in god(s), but I don't know for
sure.
I am not "waiting" for evidence, because I consider evidence for and against
god(s) every day and every day the evidence (for me) has fallen short.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm
Red
John Harshman
Feb 27, 2015, 1:50:02 PM2/27/15
to
On 2/27/15, 10:32 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>
>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any evidence
>> whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not exist.
>>
>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>> Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
>> have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>
> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
>
There are several sorts of agnostics. You have described one sort.
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>
>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any evidence
>> whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not exist.
>>
>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>> Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
>> have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>
> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
>
wiphughes described another.
An agnostic may have an opinion on God's existence, and may lean either
way but not think the evidence is conclusive. Or he may not lean in any
direction. Or he may think there is no way ever to have conclusive
evidence, or that there is no way ever to have any evidence at all. Or not.
John Harshman
Feb 27, 2015, 1:50:02 PM2/27/15
to
On 2/27/15, 10:26 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 2/26/15 6:56 PM, Dale wrote:
>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> Depends on the God. There are some gods for which I have evidence that
> they do not exist, others which evidence supports, and still others for
> which evidence is lacking one way or the other.
>
>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>
> Does it matter?
>
> (Hint: No, it doesn't.)
>
I am curious about "...others which evidence supports...".
> On 2/26/15 6:56 PM, Dale wrote:
>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> Depends on the God. There are some gods for which I have evidence that
> they do not exist, others which evidence supports, and still others for
> which evidence is lacking one way or the other.
>
>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>
> Does it matter?
>
> (Hint: No, it doesn't.)
>
Leopoldo Perdomo
Feb 27, 2015, 2:50:02 PM2/27/15
to
An atheist is an atheist because he has not any evidence about the
existence of a god. The only evidence of a god we have are the priests
that earn their life speaking about god.
I am following the gospel of John in 1:1 "In the beginning was the word,
and the word was god." It cannot be more clear.
In this sense, I am not an atheist, I know that god exist, "it is made
of words". It is nothing else.
God is also a truth; because "a truth is a social convention".
Nothing else. You want to debate with me?
Eri
wpih...@gmail.com
Feb 27, 2015, 3:00:03 PM2/27/15
to
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 2/26/15 6:56 PM, Dale wrote:
> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> Depends on the God. There are some gods for which I have evidence that
> they do not exist
Pretty wimpy gods. If you can't arrange for any set of observations
> On 2/26/15 6:56 PM, Dale wrote:
> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> Depends on the God. There are some gods for which I have evidence that
> they do not exist
then you do not deserve the name god.
-William Hughes
Sneaky O. Possum
Feb 27, 2015, 3:50:04 PM2/27/15
to
wpih...@gmail.com wrote in news:96ea0078-d6f6-4299-b0da-
a1f1f1...@googlegroups.com:
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any evidence
> whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not exist.
Well, that's just silly. 'Evidence that God does not exist' is, by
definition, a member of the set 'any evidence whatsoever'. Therefore, God
can create evidence that God does not exist. Therefore, there can be such
evidence. Logic!
>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them
>> agnostics?
>
> Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
> have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
I still want to know whether we're supposed to be waiting for evidence that
God doesn't exist or evidence that he does.
--
S.O.P.
a1f1f1...@googlegroups.com:
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any evidence
> whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not exist.
definition, a member of the set 'any evidence whatsoever'. Therefore, God
can create evidence that God does not exist. Therefore, there can be such
evidence. Logic!
>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them
>> agnostics?
>
> Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
> have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
God doesn't exist or evidence that he does.
--
S.O.P.
Sneaky O. Possum
Feb 27, 2015, 4:05:03 PM2/27/15
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
news:20e1fa1jqpag1bfin...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>
>>On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>
>>Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any
>>evidence whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not
>>exist.
>>
>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them
>>> agnostics?
>>
>>Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
>>have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>
> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
This agnostic doesn't believe that.
I don't know of any evidence that would settle the question, but I'm not
arrogant enough to imagine that my ignorance demonstrates that no such
evidence exists or ever will exist. It just doesn't matter to me one way
or the other. If I cared, I wouldn't wait for evidence: I'd seek it out.
I'm lazy, but I'm not *that* lazy.
--
S.O.P.
news:20e1fa1jqpag1bfin...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>
>>On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>
>>Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any
>>evidence whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not
>>exist.
>>
>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them
>>> agnostics?
>>
>>Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
>>have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>
> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
I don't know of any evidence that would settle the question, but I'm not
arrogant enough to imagine that my ignorance demonstrates that no such
evidence exists or ever will exist. It just doesn't matter to me one way
or the other. If I cared, I wouldn't wait for evidence: I'd seek it out.
I'm lazy, but I'm not *that* lazy.
--
S.O.P.
Earle Jones27
Feb 27, 2015, 5:10:03 PM2/27/15
to
On 2015-02-27 18:32:53 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>
>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any evidence
>> whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not exist.
>>
>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>> Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
>> have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>
> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
*
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>
>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any evidence
>> whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not exist.
>>
>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>> Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
>> have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>
> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
What is an agnostic?
1. One who does not know whether any God exists – or
2. One who does not believe it is possible to know whether any God exists.
3. Other
Which is it?
1. and 2. are very different in my opinion.
earle
*
Mark Isaak
Feb 27, 2015, 7:15:01 PM2/27/15
to
where, though I think it was in Australia.) The poetic quality of the
Qu'ran is weak evidence for its divine inspiration. And then there are
things like guest appearances on grilled cheese sandwiches. I said
evidence, not *good* evidence.
John Harshman
Feb 27, 2015, 8:40:02 PM2/27/15
to
On 2/27/15, 4:12 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 2/27/15 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/27/15, 10:26 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2/26/15 6:56 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>
>>> Depends on the God. There are some gods for which I have evidence that
>>> they do not exist, others which evidence supports, and still others for
>>> which evidence is lacking one way or the other.
>>>
>>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>>
>>> Does it matter?
>>>
>>> (Hint: No, it doesn't.)
>>>
>> I am curious about "...others which evidence supports...".
>
> At least one god left footprints. (Sorry, I have forgotten who and
> where, though I think it was in Australia.) The poetic quality of the
> Qu'ran is weak evidence for its divine inspiration. And then there are
> things like guest appearances on grilled cheese sandwiches. I said
> evidence, not *good* evidence.
>
Sorry, I think we have different understandings of the word "evidence",
> On 2/27/15 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/27/15, 10:26 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2/26/15 6:56 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>
>>> Depends on the God. There are some gods for which I have evidence that
>>> they do not exist, others which evidence supports, and still others for
>>> which evidence is lacking one way or the other.
>>>
>>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>>
>>> Does it matter?
>>>
>>> (Hint: No, it doesn't.)
>>>
>> I am curious about "...others which evidence supports...".
>
> At least one god left footprints. (Sorry, I have forgotten who and
> where, though I think it was in Australia.) The poetic quality of the
> Qu'ran is weak evidence for its divine inspiration. And then there are
> things like guest appearances on grilled cheese sandwiches. I said
> evidence, not *good* evidence.
>
or at least I have a somewhat higher threshold. But it's good to know
that limericks are divinely inspired.
Bob Casanova
Feb 28, 2015, 12:25:01 PM2/28/15
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:00:10 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:
Your privilege, but the OED disagrees with you regarding the
meaning of "agnostic". And it's not a matter of arrogance,
but of belief that some things not only are not known, but
will never be known with certainty.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:
meaning of "agnostic". And it's not a matter of arrogance,
but of belief that some things not only are not known, but
will never be known with certainty.
Bob Casanova
Feb 28, 2015, 12:25:01 PM2/28/15
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:46:56 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
You may be correct; language is always changing. I prefer to
use the dictionary definition for non-technical words such
as this one, especially since it provides a definition not
covered by any other single word *and* fits the etymology of
"a" and "gnostic". Admittedly, the OED expands the
meaning...
"1.1(In a non-religious context) having a doubtful or
non-committal attitude towards something: 'until now I致e
been fairly agnostic about electoral reform' "
....but as noted, restricts it to non-religious context.
So, whenever the subject is a religious one, I'll continue
to use the OED reference.
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
use the dictionary definition for non-technical words such
as this one, especially since it provides a definition not
covered by any other single word *and* fits the etymology of
"a" and "gnostic". Admittedly, the OED expands the
meaning...
"1.1(In a non-religious context) having a doubtful or
non-committal attitude towards something: 'until now I致e
been fairly agnostic about electoral reform' "
....but as noted, restricts it to non-religious context.
So, whenever the subject is a religious one, I'll continue
to use the OED reference.
Bob Casanova
Feb 28, 2015, 12:30:00 PM2/28/15
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:08:23 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net>:
The OED says it's both #1 and #2, as I stated above.
>1. and 2. are very different in my opinion.
Not really; #2 obviously includes #1; if one believes it's
impossible to know the obvious corollary is that one
*doesn't* know.
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net>:
>1. and 2. are very different in my opinion.
impossible to know the obvious corollary is that one
*doesn't* know.
Bob Casanova
Feb 28, 2015, 12:34:59 PM2/28/15
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:34:53 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
I'm sure the well-known Man from Grand Haven would agree.
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
John Harshman
Feb 28, 2015, 6:54:58 PM2/28/15
to
> been fairly agnostic about electoral reform' "
>
> ....but as noted, restricts it to non-religious context.
>
> So, whenever the subject is a religious one, I'll continue
> to use the OED reference.
>
So you're a prescriptivist? These days it's more popular to model how
>
> ....but as noted, restricts it to non-religious context.
>
> So, whenever the subject is a religious one, I'll continue
> to use the OED reference.
>
people actually speak, and so it's more likely to ask what
self-described agnostics think they are.
passer...@gmail.com
Feb 28, 2015, 9:44:58 PM2/28/15
to
The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
Glad to help.
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
>
> earle
> *
Glad to help.
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> On 2015-02-27 02:56:30 +0000, Dale said:
>
> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
> >
>
> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
> >
> > if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>
> *
>
> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
>
> earle
> *
Paul J Gans
Feb 28, 2015, 10:04:58 PM2/28/15
to
universe work, you silly boy.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
passer...@gmail.com
Feb 28, 2015, 10:34:59 PM2/28/15
to
If you want to call God/That Which Makes the Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
Robert Carnegie
Mar 1, 2015, 12:34:58 AM3/1/15
to
On Friday, 27 February 2015 03:00:16 UTC, Dale wrote:
> atheism is a faith ...
of what an "atheist" is or what a "god" is.
So I've started recommending that an "atheist"
is someone who doesn't perform worship of gods,
gods being defined as living supernatural beings
that people worship, and "worship" being the act
of propitiating a god. As simple as that then:
an atheist doesn't worship.
Well... if gods don't exist, then no one is
worshipping them. So, everyone's an atheist.
Wait. That can't be right.
Okay... if you /think/ you're worshipping any
gods, then you aren't an atheist.
Or, something like that.
Anyway...
"Agnostic" is a word that was invented specifically
to mean a firm belief - or rather a firm policy -
that it's impossible to have real knowledge of
supernatural things in this material world.
Technically that doctrine also excludes declaring
that there aren't gods living in a separate
invisible world from this one. But it's a
rather unsatisfactory hypothesis. In the
Middle Ages, philosophers were content to
suppose that God and his angels live in
outer space amongst the planets, but they
also were content to supose that all the
planets and stars orbit around the Earth,
and we've now gone off /that/ idea.
> atheism is a faith ...
>
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
There aren't sturdy definitions in general use
> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
of what an "atheist" is or what a "god" is.
So I've started recommending that an "atheist"
is someone who doesn't perform worship of gods,
gods being defined as living supernatural beings
that people worship, and "worship" being the act
of propitiating a god. As simple as that then:
an atheist doesn't worship.
Well... if gods don't exist, then no one is
worshipping them. So, everyone's an atheist.
Wait. That can't be right.
Okay... if you /think/ you're worshipping any
gods, then you aren't an atheist.
Or, something like that.
Anyway...
"Agnostic" is a word that was invented specifically
to mean a firm belief - or rather a firm policy -
that it's impossible to have real knowledge of
supernatural things in this material world.
Technically that doctrine also excludes declaring
that there aren't gods living in a separate
invisible world from this one. But it's a
rather unsatisfactory hypothesis. In the
Middle Ages, philosophers were content to
suppose that God and his angels live in
outer space amongst the planets, but they
also were content to supose that all the
planets and stars orbit around the Earth,
and we've now gone off /that/ idea.
Earle Jones27
Mar 1, 2015, 2:44:58 AM3/1/15
to
On 2015-02-27 06:07:42 +0000, wpih...@gmail.com said:
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:30:14 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective
>> claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not
>> exist. Moreover, Atheism is falsifiable; hence the existence of
>> Christianity. Before we were Christians we were Atheists living as if
>> no God exists.
>
>
> Except for the bit between "All" and "exists" (which is nonsense)
> perfectly correct.
>
> -William Hughes
*
I believe that every newborn baby is an atheist.
That is, a newborn baby has no belief in any God.
As they develop, they begin in general to pick up, by indoctrination,
the beliefs of their parents.
At around six or eight years old, they might become Christians (that
is, they may come to believe that Jesus Christ is the divine son of
God.)
On the other hand, depending on where they were born, they might come
to the conclusion that Allah and his prophet, Mohammed, are the divine
leaders of the world.
But we all begin life as atheists.
I became a Christian at about seven or eight years old. I memorized
many bits and pieces of the Bible. I was a star in Sunday School
(Northern Alabama Methodist.)
Then, as a teen-ager in high-school and later as a University science
student, I began to understand that the Biblical indoctrination could
not possibly be true.
Either the science that I was learning, or the Bible, had to be wrong.
I had to make a choice.
I tended to follow the guidance of philosophers like Bertrand Russell
and David Hume:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
--David Hume (1711-1776)
I now follow the evidence. And, in my 83 years on earth, I have seen
no evidence that leads me to believe in any "God", Christian or Muslim
or any other.
I am an atheist.
earle
*
PS: As my late friend, Billy Barnes, said,"If there happens to be an
all-knowing God, he will certainly understand my point of view."
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:30:14 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective
>> claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not
>> exist. Moreover, Atheism is falsifiable; hence the existence of
>> Christianity. Before we were Christians we were Atheists living as if
>> no God exists.
>
>
> Except for the bit between "All" and "exists" (which is nonsense)
> perfectly correct.
>
> -William Hughes
*
I believe that every newborn baby is an atheist.
That is, a newborn baby has no belief in any God.
As they develop, they begin in general to pick up, by indoctrination,
the beliefs of their parents.
At around six or eight years old, they might become Christians (that
is, they may come to believe that Jesus Christ is the divine son of
God.)
On the other hand, depending on where they were born, they might come
to the conclusion that Allah and his prophet, Mohammed, are the divine
leaders of the world.
But we all begin life as atheists.
I became a Christian at about seven or eight years old. I memorized
many bits and pieces of the Bible. I was a star in Sunday School
(Northern Alabama Methodist.)
Then, as a teen-ager in high-school and later as a University science
student, I began to understand that the Biblical indoctrination could
not possibly be true.
Either the science that I was learning, or the Bible, had to be wrong.
I had to make a choice.
I tended to follow the guidance of philosophers like Bertrand Russell
and David Hume:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
--David Hume (1711-1776)
I now follow the evidence. And, in my 83 years on earth, I have seen
no evidence that leads me to believe in any "God", Christian or Muslim
or any other.
I am an atheist.
earle
*
PS: As my late friend, Billy Barnes, said,"If there happens to be an
all-knowing God, he will certainly understand my point of view."
Ymir
Mar 1, 2015, 3:04:58 AM3/1/15
to
In article <20cb6a3c-317a-4ca9...@googlegroups.com>,
Andre
passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
>
What exactly would a universe that doesn't work look like?
> The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
>
Andre
Burkhard
Mar 1, 2015, 3:29:58 AM3/1/15
to
Earle Jones27 wrote:
> On 2015-02-27 06:07:42 +0000, wpih...@gmail.com said:
>
>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:30:14 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective
>>> claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not
>>> exist. Moreover, Atheism is falsifiable; hence the existence of
>>> Christianity. Before we were Christians we were Atheists living as if
>>> no God exists.
>>
>>
>> Except for the bit between "All" and "exists" (which is nonsense)
>> perfectly correct.
>>
>> -William Hughes
>
> *
> I believe that every newborn baby is an atheist.
>
> That is, a newborn baby has no belief in any God.
That is true, but neither have my shoes nor the straircase in our house.
> On 2015-02-27 06:07:42 +0000, wpih...@gmail.com said:
>
>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:30:14 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> All or almost all Atheists are Evolutionists; therefore the objective
>>> claims of evolutionary theory becomes the evidence that God does not
>>> exist. Moreover, Atheism is falsifiable; hence the existence of
>>> Christianity. Before we were Christians we were Atheists living as if
>>> no God exists.
>>
>>
>> Except for the bit between "All" and "exists" (which is nonsense)
>> perfectly correct.
>>
>> -William Hughes
>
> *
> I believe that every newborn baby is an atheist.
>
> That is, a newborn baby has no belief in any God.
Yet you would not call them atheist shoes or staircases, I presume? How
about animals, does the predication makes sense to all/some of them?
I'd worry that any definition of atheist that includes babies will also
include lots of other things that are normally not thought to be
suitable arguments for this predicate.
>
> As they develop, they begin in general to pick up, by indoctrination,
> the beliefs of their parents.
That one is more interesting - less a semantic issue but one empirical
> As they develop, they begin in general to pick up, by indoctrination,
> the beliefs of their parents.
theories. You are undoubtedly right for any specific religious belief
such as Christianity. More problematic for "theist mini-theories"
themselves. Evolutionary theories of the origin of religion have found I
think quite compelling evidence, from several converging theories, that
the tendency to develop a theistic outlook, broadly speaking, might well
be innate (a good overview of the recent debate is in Scott Atran's "In
Gods we trust". According to some primate researchers (Jane Goodall,
e.g.), humans may not be the only ones either.
Leopoldo Perdomo
Mar 1, 2015, 5:14:57 AM3/1/15
to
Eri
wpih...@gmail.com
Mar 1, 2015, 8:05:02 AM3/1/15
to
On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:44:58 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
>
Heretic. Of course the FSM is required to make the universe work.
> The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
>
(There are heretical "sects" that teach otherwise.)
Please stone yourself immediately
-William Hughes
wpih...@gmail.com
Mar 1, 2015, 8:09:57 AM3/1/15
to
On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:34:59 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you want to call God/That Which Makes the
> Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
Heretic. The FSM must always be referred to
> If you want to call God/That Which Makes the
> Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
correctly and anyone who
writes down his name must stone themselves
immediately.
-William Hughes
Bob Casanova
Mar 1, 2015, 12:09:57 PM3/1/15
to
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:40:57 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
True. Did you have some point you wished to make?
>Glad to help.
....for some values of "help"...
>On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>> On 2015-02-27 02:56:30 +0000, Dale said:
>>
>> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>> >
>> > if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>> *
>> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
>>
>> earle
>> *
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
>Glad to help.
....for some values of "help"...
>On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>> On 2015-02-27 02:56:30 +0000, Dale said:
>>
>> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>> >
>> > if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>> *
>> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
>>
>> earle
>> *
Bob Casanova
Mar 1, 2015, 12:09:57 PM3/1/15
to
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:51:47 -0800, the following appeared
>> non-committal attitude towards something: 'until now I致e
unnecessary.
> These days it's more popular to model how
>people actually speak, and so it's more likely to ask what
>self-described agnostics think they are.
I don't disagree, but ISTM that if we have a perfectly good,
*unique* word to describe something it doesn't help
understanding in discussion to use it with a different
meaning. The meaning some use seems to correspond more to
the common definition of "weak atheist" than to any sort of
belief about the limits of knowledge.
But as you say, as long as the intended meaning is made
clear by the user at the time of use it's workable.
>> been fairly agnostic about electoral reform' "
>>
>> ....but as noted, restricts it to non-religious context.
>>
>> So, whenever the subject is a religious one, I'll continue
>> to use the OED reference.
>So you're a prescriptivist?
Labels are wonderful; they make consideration of issues
>>
>> ....but as noted, restricts it to non-religious context.
>>
>> So, whenever the subject is a religious one, I'll continue
>> to use the OED reference.
>So you're a prescriptivist?
unnecessary.
> These days it's more popular to model how
>people actually speak, and so it's more likely to ask what
>self-described agnostics think they are.
*unique* word to describe something it doesn't help
understanding in discussion to use it with a different
meaning. The meaning some use seems to correspond more to
the common definition of "weak atheist" than to any sort of
belief about the limits of knowledge.
But as you say, as long as the intended meaning is made
clear by the user at the time of use it's workable.
Mark Isaak
Mar 1, 2015, 12:29:57 PM3/1/15
to
but they are not heretics.
wpih...@gmail.com
Mar 1, 2015, 12:39:56 PM3/1/15
to
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 1:29:57 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> Some people know His name as "string theory". They may be misguided,
> but they are not heretics.
There are only true believers and heretics.
> Some people know His name as "string theory". They may be misguided,
> but they are not heretics.
Please stone yourself immediately.
-William Hughes
Paul J Gans
Mar 1, 2015, 1:19:57 PM3/1/15
to
passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>If you want to call God/That Which Makes the Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
No, the God who makes the universe work is Zack, a black lab. You
>If you want to call God/That Which Makes the Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
can ask him if you don't believe me.
The flying spaghetti monster is the one who puts strands of causuality
to work in the universe. Zack doesn't care about causuality, he only
cares about squirrels. Indeed, the entire universe was created to
bring forth squirrels. We are merely byproducts.
J. J. Lodder
Mar 1, 2015, 4:44:56 PM3/1/15
to
<wpih...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:44:58 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrot:
I hope, by an act of mercy?
Jan
> On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:44:58 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrot:
>
> > The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
> >
> Heretic. Of course the FSM is required to make the universe work.
> (There are heretical "sects" that teach otherwise.)
> Please stone yourself immediately
He may be allowed to burn hmself at the stake,
> > The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
> >
> Heretic. Of course the FSM is required to make the universe work.
> (There are heretical "sects" that teach otherwise.)
> Please stone yourself immediately
I hope, by an act of mercy?
Jan
John Harshman
Mar 1, 2015, 4:49:56 PM3/1/15
to
>>> been fairly agnostic about electoral reform' "
>>>
>>> ....but as noted, restricts it to non-religious context.
>>>
>>> So, whenever the subject is a religious one, I'll continue
>>> to use the OED reference.
>
>> So you're a prescriptivist?
>
> Labels are wonderful; they make consideration of issues
> unnecessary.
On the contrary, they make the issues clear. You are supporting a
>>>
>>> ....but as noted, restricts it to non-religious context.
>>>
>>> So, whenever the subject is a religious one, I'll continue
>>> to use the OED reference.
>
>> So you're a prescriptivist?
>
> Labels are wonderful; they make consideration of issues
> unnecessary.
particular definition of "agnostic" because that's what a dictionary
says. There's a word for that.
If you use the definition that people commonly have in mind when they
say the word (and even better, when they use it about themselves),
there's another word for that.
>> These days it's more popular to model how
>> people actually speak, and so it's more likely to ask what
>> self-described agnostics think they are.
>
> I don't disagree, but ISTM that if we have a perfectly good,
> *unique* word to describe something it doesn't help
> understanding in discussion to use it with a different
> meaning. The meaning some use seems to correspond more to
> the common definition of "weak atheist" than to any sort of
> belief about the limits of knowledge.
>
> But as you say, as long as the intended meaning is made
> clear by the user at the time of use it's workable.
You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
support that sort of thing. But in this case, history has already run
you over and departed into the sunset.
wpih...@gmail.com
Mar 1, 2015, 5:09:56 PM3/1/15
to
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
> support that sort of thing.
You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
> support that sort of thing.
usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
against a particular usage and later that usage went out
of fashion.
-William Hughes
John Harshman
Mar 1, 2015, 5:29:55 PM3/1/15
to
On 3/1/15, 2:05 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>> support that sort of thing.
>
> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
> of fashion.
I don't know, but of course we wouldn't remember the successful efforts,
> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>> support that sort of thing.
>
> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
> of fashion.
if any. Besides, what's wrong with futile efforts?
Virgil
Mar 1, 2015, 5:39:55 PM3/1/15
to
In article <iNCdnefDn9haFW7J...@giganews.com>,
> >>> non-committal attitude towards something: 'until now I靶e
How can "AGNOSTIC" not mean what Thomas Henry Huxley meant by it?.
"In 1869 Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' to describe his uncertainty
of whether or not a god exists"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
"In 1869 Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' to describe his uncertainty
of whether or not a god exists"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
jillery
Mar 1, 2015, 6:14:56 PM3/1/15
to
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:40:57 -0800 (PST), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:
>The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
>
>Glad to help.
Neither is God.
>On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>> On 2015-02-27 02:56:30 +0000, Dale said:
>>
>> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>> >
>> > if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>> *
>> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
>>
>> earle
>> *
--
Intelligence is never insulting.
wrote:
>The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
>
>Glad to help.
>On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>> On 2015-02-27 02:56:30 +0000, Dale said:
>>
>> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>> >
>> > if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>
>> *
>> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
>>
>> earle
>> *
Intelligence is never insulting.
John Harshman
Mar 1, 2015, 6:54:55 PM3/1/15
to
wpih...@gmail.com
Mar 1, 2015, 6:59:55 PM3/1/15
to
> Besides, what's wrong with futile efforts?
boards is not in any position to question the utility
of futile efforts. ( <off key> To Dream the Impossible Dream ... NO SINGING)
My question as to whether there were any (documented) examples
of success was not meant to imply that unsuccessful efforts
were valueless.
-William Hughes
Virgil
Mar 1, 2015, 6:59:55 PM3/1/15
to
John Harshman
Mar 1, 2015, 7:49:55 PM3/1/15
to
Language is a popularity contest.
Virgil
Mar 1, 2015, 8:09:56 PM3/1/15
to
In article <NeKdnexgYcV5L27J...@giganews.com>,
You are, as usual, trying to put your own spin on what others say. But
your spin lives only in your own mind and in no way imposes itself on
others.
your spin lives only in your own mind and in no way imposes itself on
others.
John Harshman
Mar 1, 2015, 8:39:56 PM3/1/15
to
Huxley's meaning change, but people certainly can make the meaning of
the word Huxley coined change, simply by enough of them using it to mean
something else. Thoughts?
Mark Isaak
Mar 1, 2015, 10:19:56 PM3/1/15
to
Will getting drunk do?
Mark Isaak
Mar 1, 2015, 10:24:55 PM3/1/15
to
On 3/1/15 2:05 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>> support that sort of thing.
>
> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
> of fashion.
"Hir" for "his or her". Also "s/he", though it is not completely dead yet.
> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>> support that sort of thing.
>
> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
> of fashion.
wpih...@gmail.com
Mar 1, 2015, 11:49:55 PM3/1/15
to
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 11:19:56 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/1/15 9:39 AM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 1:29:57 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
> >> Some people know His name as "string theory". They may be misguided,
> >> but they are not heretics.
> >
> > There are only true believers and heretics.
> > Please stone yourself immediately.
>
> I do not currently have on hand the proper materials for getting stoned.
> Will getting drunk do?
Of course. But only if you do it with
> On 3/1/15 9:39 AM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 1:29:57 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
> >> Some people know His name as "string theory". They may be misguided,
> >> but they are not heretics.
> >
> > There are only true believers and heretics.
> > Please stone yourself immediately.
>
> I do not currently have on hand the proper materials for getting stoned.
> Will getting drunk do?
beer or wine. and not if the beer is made from
wheat.
And I say unto ye, he (the holy church
of the great and powerful FSM is sexist )
who shall partake of the
rotten juice of the grape, he shall have tomato sauce,
yea and even meatballs, for eternity.
-William Hughes
J. J. Lodder
Mar 2, 2015, 4:24:55 AM3/2/15
to
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Mar 2, 2015, 4:24:57 AM3/2/15
to
(beyond wishful thinking)
We won't know until we have seen a dominantly gods-free society
for a couple of generations.
What we do see is that atheism arises
whenever the possibilities for it are there.
(also in second or third generation islam in Western Europe,
for example, despite heavy social pressure against)
Conversely, in societies where religeous indoctrination
is no longer the norm we see little tendency
to re-invent new gods because the need for them is inate.
We also se little reconversion to existing beliefs.
Cultural influences are more important than inate needs here,
it seems to me,
Jan
Ernest Major
Mar 2, 2015, 5:14:54 AM3/2/15
to
On 27/02/2015 22:08, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> What is an agnostic?
>
> 1. One who does not know whether any God exists – or
Yes, that's an agnostic
>
> 2. One who does not believe it is possible to know whether any God exists.
And, yes, that's an agnostic
>
> 3. Other
And, yes, apatheists and ignosticists might be considered as agnostics.
>
> Which is it?
>
> 1. and 2. are very different in my opinion.
>
> earle
> *
>
--
alias Ernest Major
> On 2015-02-27 18:32:53 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any
>>> evidence
>>> whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not exist.
>>>
>>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>>
>>> Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
>>> have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>>
>> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
>> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
>
> *
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any
>>> evidence
>>> whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not exist.
>>>
>>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>>>
>>> Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
>>> have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>>
>> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
>> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
>
> What is an agnostic?
>
> 1. One who does not know whether any God exists – or
Yes, that's an agnostic
>
> 2. One who does not believe it is possible to know whether any God exists.
And, yes, that's an agnostic
>
> 3. Other
And, yes, apatheists and ignosticists might be considered as agnostics.
>
> Which is it?
>
> 1. and 2. are very different in my opinion.
>
> earle
> *
>
--
alias Ernest Major
A Nony Mouse
Mar 2, 2015, 5:14:58 AM3/2/15
to
In article <1m0lu57.1ygr5866b7q2mN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>,
The present actual world appears to be a long way short of any
"best of all possible worlds"!
"best of all possible worlds"!
Walter Bushell
Mar 2, 2015, 6:34:54 AM3/2/15
to
In article <mctvh7$a2k$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> universe work, you silly boy.
Yes, obviously the Universe exists, therefore the FSM exists. What
could be more clear as well as the IPU.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
>
> >Glad to help.
> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
>
>
> >On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >> On 2015-02-27 02:56:30 +0000, Dale said:
> >>
> >On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >> On 2015-02-27 02:56:30 +0000, Dale said:
> >>
> >> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
> >>
> >>
> >> *
> >> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
> >>
> >> earle
> >> *
>
> Of course the flying spaghetti monster IS required to make the
> >> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
> >>
> >> earle
> >> *
>
> universe work, you silly boy.
Yes, obviously the Universe exists, therefore the FSM exists. What
could be more clear as well as the IPU.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Walter Bushell
Mar 2, 2015, 6:39:54 AM3/2/15
to
In article <58428aca-f60b-487f...@googlegroups.com>,
wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:34:59 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com
Only in states where Colorado Oregano is legal.
wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:34:59 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > If you want to call God/That Which Makes the
> > Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
>
> > If you want to call God/That Which Makes the
> > Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
>
> Heretic. The FSM must always be referred to
> correctly and anyone who
> writes down his name must stone themselves
> immediately.
>
> -William Hughes
> correctly and anyone who
> writes down his name must stone themselves
> immediately.
>
Only in states where Colorado Oregano is legal.
Walter Bushell
Mar 2, 2015, 6:39:56 AM3/2/15
to
In article <3ffa9573-d590-4dbd...@googlegroups.com>,
Leopoldo Perdomo <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El domingo, 1 de marzo de 2015, 8:04:58 (UTC), Ymir escribió:
> > In article <20cb6a3c-317a-4ca9...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> This is a good question.
> Eri
Congress.
Leopoldo Perdomo <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El domingo, 1 de marzo de 2015, 8:04:58 (UTC), Ymir escribió:
> > In article <20cb6a3c-317a-4ca9...@googlegroups.com>,
> > passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
> > >
> >
> > What exactly would a universe that doesn't work look like?
> >
> > Andre
> >
>
> This is a good question.
> Eri
Congress.
Nick Roberts
Mar 2, 2015, 11:24:56 AM3/2/15
to
In message <a81ee606-ce25-45b3...@googlegroups.com>
Are you dressed as a pirate, as is required of all True Believers when
discussing the FSM?
If not, please stone yourself immediately.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
discussing the FSM?
If not, please stone yourself immediately.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Message has been deleted
Bob Casanova
Mar 2, 2015, 1:19:54 PM3/2/15
to
On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 13:46:47 -0800, the following appeared
Uh, no, I'm not. As I noted below.
>If you use the definition that people commonly have in mind when they
>say the word (and even better, when they use it about themselves),
>there's another word for that.
>
>>> These days it's more popular to model how
>>> people actually speak, and so it's more likely to ask what
>>> self-described agnostics think they are.
>>
>> I don't disagree, but ISTM that if we have a perfectly good,
>> *unique* word to describe something it doesn't help
>> understanding in discussion to use it with a different
>> meaning. The meaning some use seems to correspond more to
>> the common definition of "weak atheist" than to any sort of
>> belief about the limits of knowledge.
>>
>> But as you say, as long as the intended meaning is made
>> clear by the user at the time of use it's workable.
>
>You should also realize that language changes whether we like it or not.
....as I also noted.
>You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>support that sort of thing. But in this case, history has already run
>you over and departed into the sunset.
OK, so what *is* the word which replaced "agnostic" to
indicate one who believes that some things will never be
known with any certainty? Since you failed to address what I
wrote and only accused me of being a language Luddite I'm
sure you have one in mind, unless you think the description
is no longer valid for anyone. Is that it?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
>If you use the definition that people commonly have in mind when they
>say the word (and even better, when they use it about themselves),
>there's another word for that.
>
>>> These days it's more popular to model how
>>> people actually speak, and so it's more likely to ask what
>>> self-described agnostics think they are.
>>
>> I don't disagree, but ISTM that if we have a perfectly good,
>> *unique* word to describe something it doesn't help
>> understanding in discussion to use it with a different
>> meaning. The meaning some use seems to correspond more to
>> the common definition of "weak atheist" than to any sort of
>> belief about the limits of knowledge.
>>
>> But as you say, as long as the intended meaning is made
>> clear by the user at the time of use it's workable.
>
>You should also realize that language changes whether we like it or not.
>You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>support that sort of thing. But in this case, history has already run
>you over and departed into the sunset.
indicate one who believes that some things will never be
known with any certainty? Since you failed to address what I
wrote and only accused me of being a language Luddite I'm
sure you have one in mind, unless you think the description
is no longer valid for anyone. Is that it?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
Mar 2, 2015, 1:19:54 PM3/2/15
to
On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:50:55 -0800, the following appeared
R U sure?
Burkhard
Mar 2, 2015, 1:19:54 PM3/2/15
to
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
flies. Some of the most high profile proponents of this idea are rather
outspoken atheists themselves- Jesse Bering, Lewis Wolpert, Sloan
Wilson, Pascal Boyer, and Steward Guthrie come to mind, or Matthew Alper
who goes a step further when he argues (in "The GOD Part of the Brain,
Sourcebooks, 2009" ) showing how belief in deities evolved as a function
of the brain is positive evidence that there is no god. (personally I
think this fails for the same reason as trying the reverse argument
fails) Stephen J Gould, after initial rejection of all evolutionary
psychology, came round to the notion of an evolutionary base for
evolution later in life.
By contrast, other proponents of the idea are equally outspoken theists,
Dominic Johnson or Jeffrey Schloss,for instance, so religious
affiliation or personal investment in the outcome seems to have no
influence on the research, as it should be of course.
As to the other question,on the evidence base:
There are several early childhood studies that compare children that
grow up in theistic and atheistic environments that show that the core
elements for a theistic worldview- attributing agency to invisible
and/or inanimate objects, ritualistic control over them/fate, a
dualistic self-understanding (body v soul) and "norm violation as
causative agent ("this happens to me because I was bad")emerge in all of
them in similar degrees.
(e.g. Berig and Parker, B. D. (2006). Children's attributions of
intentions to an invisible agent. Developmental Psychology, 42, 253-262;
Bering, J. M., Hernández-Blasi, C., Bjorklund, D. F. (2005). The
development of ‘afterlife’ beliefs in secularly and religiously
schooled children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23,
587-607; Bering, J. M. (2005). The evolutionary history of an illusion:
Religious causal beliefs in children and adults. In B. Ellis & D.
Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology
and child development (pp. 411-437). New York: Guilford Press.
Then there are studies that look at the expression of religion when
certain parts of the brain are harmed. But the narrow theory is actually
extremely easy to prove (and might
have ramifications for the wide theory) Certain types of mental
illness are either very strongly, or very negatively correlated with
religious beliefs.
People with schizotypy are much more likely than average to have
religious beliefs. (e.g. Samantha Day, Emmanuelle PetersThe incidence
of schizotypy in new religious movements, Personality and Individual
Differences Volume 27, Issue 1, 1 July 1999) Quite natural: If I've
learned speaking with others, and then suddenly hear a voice in my
head, to infer that there must be "a speaker" is straightforward.
By contrast, other mental conditions make it very unlikely that the
person has any sort of religious beliefs, e.g. autism. Again quite
natural - people who struggle to ascribe agency even to other humans,
and have a theory of mind for them, are unlikely to ascribe minds to
trees, rivers, thunderstorms or invisible beings. ,The full study is
here: Bethany Heywood, 2010, “Teleo-functional Reasoning About
Significant Life Events in Atheistic, Theistic and Autistic
Populations
Then you get fmri studies that correlate religious thinking with
specific brain regions and their development - still very limited, but
some results e.g. here Harris S, Kaplan JT, Curiel A, Bookheimer SY,
Iacoboni M, et al. (2010) Correction: The Neural Correlates of Religious
and Nonreligious Belief. PLoS ONE 5(1) (and yes, that is "the" Sam Harris)
Then you get studies in other primates, e.g. Evolving God: A Provocative
View on the Origins of Religion by Barbara J. King,or soem of the stuff
Jane Goodall did. Jill Pruetz' " Reaction to fire by savanna
chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Fongoli, Senegal:
Conceptualization of fire behavior and thecase for a chimpanzee model",
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2008, which builds on work by
Jane Goodall on the gorilla "rain dance".
This does not mean that everybody agrees on these findings, Berling,
cited above, things that the hardwiring took place much later, and
that it is a specific human trait: Bering, J. M. (2001). Theistic
percepts in other species: Can chimpanzees represent the minds of
non-natural agents? Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1, 107-137.
and you get computational models that check how theistic beliefs could
have spread, e.g James Dow, Is Religion an Evolutionary Adaptation?
Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 11, no. 2 2
and form those who emphasize the "social glue" aspect, you get evidence
from computational modelling, game and decision theory and observation
of extant societies, e.g.
Johnson, D. D. P. & Bering, J. M. (2006) Hand of God, mind of man:
punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary
Psychology 4: 219–233
many of which are game theory based, as is most work on the evolution
of cooperation, e.g.
Schloss, J. P. (2008) He Who Laughs Best: Religious Affect as a
Solution to Recursive Cooperative Defection. In The Evolution of
Religion: Studies, Theories, and Critiques
Ruffle, B. & Sosis., R. (2007) Does it pay to pray? Costly ritual and
cooperation. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy 7, 1-35.
(another study that compares religious and non religious communities)
Sosis, R. (2004) The adaptive value of religious ritual. American
Scientist 92, 166-172.
So lots of evidence which in itself might be weak, but having lots of
converging lines leads cumulatively to quite strong picture
> a dominantly gods-free society
> for a couple of generations.
>
> What we do see is that atheism arises
> whenever the possibilities for it are there.
> (also in second or third generation islam in Western Europe,
> for example, despite heavy social pressure against)
"typical", let alone "universal". Our sexual preferences seem to be to a
large degree hardwired - that you get homosexuality reported from all
cultures where there is a possibility for it does not mean that
heterosexuality in those who swing that way isn't hardwired.
Nor would the theory that a tendency to theism is hardwired preclude
that atheism is hardwired as well - there are some studies at least
that indicate as much
>
> Conversely, in societies where religeous indoctrination
> is no longer the norm we see little tendency
> to re-invent new gods because the need for them is inate.
> We also se little reconversion to existing beliefs.
after the fall of communism, reconversion was quite massive, as is the
increase in religious affiliation in China ever since the cultural
revolution stopped making this dangerous.
Borowik, I., and G. Babinski in their 1997 study "New religious
phenomenon in central and eastern Europe" estimate that since the fall
of the Soviet Union, several hundred thousand people joined churches
for the first time. Nor where these all underground Christians, as as
the same time, neo-pagan groups saw a massive increase in membership.
( Shnirelman, V. A. “Perun, Svarog and Others: The Russian Neo-
Paganism in Search of Itself.” Cambridge Anthropology 21 (3), 1999–
2000: 18–36) For further statistical data see Greeley, A. 1994. A
religious revival in Russia? Journal For The Scientific Study Of
Religion. 33(3):253-273.
Not that it matters much - any evolutionary root of religion would have
evolved 500000 years ago, and there would be lots and lots of
environmental factors that could balance it out
Bob Casanova
Mar 2, 2015, 1:24:53 PM3/2/15
to
On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 19:23:19 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:
>On 3/1/15 2:05 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>>> support that sort of thing.
>>
>> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
>> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
>> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
>> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
>> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
>> of fashion.
>
>"Hir" for "his or her". Also "s/he", though it is not completely dead yet.
"Heesh"
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:
>On 3/1/15 2:05 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>>> support that sort of thing.
>>
>> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
>> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
>> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
>> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
>> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
>> of fashion.
>
>"Hir" for "his or her". Also "s/he", though it is not completely dead yet.
Bob Casanova
Mar 2, 2015, 1:24:53 PM3/2/15
to
On Mon, 02 Mar 2015 03:13:38 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by A Nony Mouse <a...@cef.ghi>:
If you could see the others you might change that opinion...
in talk.origins, posted by A Nony Mouse <a...@cef.ghi>:
John Locke
Mar 2, 2015, 1:49:53 PM3/2/15
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 02:56:30 +0000 (UTC), Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
wrote:
>
>does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
the total absense of your god, no appearences, no miracles, no help
for mankind in any respect, no guidance and no messages, the
probability for the existence of any god is very, very, very low.
Therefore, you don't need "evidence that God does not exist". Near
zero probability, in effect, implies very strongly that you have no
god. That works out just fine.
wrote:
>
>does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>
>if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>
....no. You're not grasping the implications of low probablility. Given
>if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
>
the total absense of your god, no appearences, no miracles, no help
for mankind in any respect, no guidance and no messages, the
probability for the existence of any god is very, very, very low.
Therefore, you don't need "evidence that God does not exist". Near
zero probability, in effect, implies very strongly that you have no
god. That works out just fine.
Walter Bushell
Mar 2, 2015, 2:09:54 PM3/2/15
to
In article <pha9fatbmgqdkaclb...@4ax.com>,
"Resolved if the world was created, the creator has a lot to answer
for."
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >The present actual world appears to be a long way short of any
> >"best of all possible worlds"!
>
> If you could see the others you might change that opinion...
The best of all possible world does not have to be a good one.
> >The present actual world appears to be a long way short of any
> >"best of all possible worlds"!
>
> If you could see the others you might change that opinion...
"Resolved if the world was created, the creator has a lot to answer
for."
Sneaky O. Possum
Mar 2, 2015, 2:19:54 PM3/2/15
to
An Inexplicably Sapient Hairball <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in
news:md0l1s$v07$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 3/1/15 2:05 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>>> support that sort of thing.
>>
>> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
>> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
>> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
>> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
>> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
>> of fashion.
>
> "Hir" for "his or her". Also "s/he", though it is not completely dead
> yet.
A usage has to come into fashion before it can go out of fashion. Neither
'hir' nor 's/he' has ever been common usage.
Singular 'their', on the other hand, has become common usage, and
continues to resist all attempts at eradication.
--
S.O.P.
news:md0l1s$v07$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 3/1/15 2:05 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>>> support that sort of thing.
>>
>> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
>> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
>> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
>> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
>> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
>> of fashion.
>
> "Hir" for "his or her". Also "s/he", though it is not completely dead
> yet.
'hir' nor 's/he' has ever been common usage.
Singular 'their', on the other hand, has become common usage, and
continues to resist all attempts at eradication.
--
S.O.P.
Sneaky O. Possum
Mar 2, 2015, 2:24:53 PM3/2/15
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in news:q9u3fatvf7s8tgpto...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:00:10 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
>>news:20e1fa1jqpag1bfin...@4ax.com:
>>>>exist.
>>
>>I don't know of any evidence that would settle the question, but I'm not
>>arrogant enough to imagine that my ignorance demonstrates that no such
>>evidence exists or ever will exist. It just doesn't matter to me one way
>>or the other. If I cared, I wouldn't wait for evidence: I'd seek it out.
>>I'm lazy, but I'm not *that* lazy.
>
> Your privilege, but the OED disagrees with you regarding the
> meaning of "agnostic".
Begone with your hairsplitting complaints.
--
S.O.P.
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:00:10 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
>>news:20e1fa1jqpag1bfin...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>>>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>>
>>>>> does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
>>>>
>>>>Nope. Since by definition God can do anything, he can create any
>>>>evidence whatsoever. There can be no evidence that God does not
>>>>exist.
>>>>
>>>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them
>>>>> agnostics?
>>>>
>>>>> if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them
>>>>> agnostics?
>>>>
>>>>Nope, an agnostic may not be waiting for evidence (he/she may
>>>>have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>>>
>>> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
>>> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
>>
>>This agnostic doesn't believe that.
>>>>have concluded that no evidence can settle the issue)
>>>
>>> Not quite; an agnostic believes that no evidence exists or
>>> will ever exist either way, so he won't be waiting for it.
>>
>>
>>I don't know of any evidence that would settle the question, but I'm not
>>arrogant enough to imagine that my ignorance demonstrates that no such
>>evidence exists or ever will exist. It just doesn't matter to me one way
>>or the other. If I cared, I wouldn't wait for evidence: I'd seek it out.
>>I'm lazy, but I'm not *that* lazy.
>
> Your privilege, but the OED disagrees with you regarding the
> meaning of "agnostic".
Begone with your hairsplitting complaints.
--
S.O.P.
John Harshman
Mar 2, 2015, 2:29:52 PM3/2/15
to
closer to yours (and the OED's) than to the common one. I remain
agnostic on that point.
>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
>> support that sort of thing. But in this case, history has already run
>> you over and departed into the sunset.
>
> OK, so what *is* the word which replaced "agnostic" to
> indicate one who believes that some things will never be
> known with any certainty?
> Since you failed to address what I
> wrote and only accused me of being a language Luddite I'm
> sure you have one in mind, unless you think the description
> is no longer valid for anyone. Is that it?
Sometimes there arises a new term to take up the old, restricted
meaning, and sometimes there does not. And the latter can happen even if
there still remain reasons why such a word would be useful. This is not
my fault. I'm not in charge. I just observe. No need to be mad at me.
John Harshman
Mar 2, 2015, 2:34:53 PM3/2/15
to
catch on. It's the success of resistance (on the part of self-appointed
language police) in preventing a change in meaning of an old word.
I have hopes for "infer" and "literally". But we'll see.
Sneaky O. Possum
Mar 2, 2015, 3:14:54 PM3/2/15
to
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:ktWdnf6g_MmrJ2nJ...@giganews.com:
True. Bob's prescriptivism re 'agnostic' is especially striking, given
his use of the O.E.D. as an authority. It has perhaps escaped his notice
that the O.E.D. was created to document the ways in which English has
changed over time.
> I have hopes for "infer" and "literally". But we'll see.
Preventing 'literally' from changing its meaning is literally a lost
cause: using it to mean 'in actuality' already changes its original
meaning, which is 'word for word'.
--
S.O.P.
news:ktWdnf6g_MmrJ2nJ...@giganews.com:
his use of the O.E.D. as an authority. It has perhaps escaped his notice
that the O.E.D. was created to document the ways in which English has
changed over time.
> I have hopes for "infer" and "literally". But we'll see.
cause: using it to mean 'in actuality' already changes its original
meaning, which is 'word for word'.
--
S.O.P.
Ymir
Mar 2, 2015, 3:24:54 PM3/2/15
to
In article <proto-1A163F....@news.panix.com>,
was not only the best of all possible worlds, but also the only possible
world.
> > If you could see the others you might change that opinion...
>
> The best of all possible world does not have to be a good one.
>
> "Resolved if the world was created, the creator has a lot to answer
> for."
Seconded.
Andre
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <pha9fatbmgqdkaclb...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > >The present actual world appears to be a long way short of any
> > >"best of all possible worlds"!
Since Spinoza was a determinist, he might well have thought that this
> In article <pha9fatbmgqdkaclb...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > >The present actual world appears to be a long way short of any
> > >"best of all possible worlds"!
was not only the best of all possible worlds, but also the only possible
world.
> > If you could see the others you might change that opinion...
>
> The best of all possible world does not have to be a good one.
>
> "Resolved if the world was created, the creator has a lot to answer
> for."
Andre
John Harshman
Mar 2, 2015, 3:29:53 PM3/2/15
to
pulling my leg" in situations where your hand is not actually in contact
with my foot doesn't seem like a problem. Literally.
Paul J Gans
Mar 2, 2015, 3:29:53 PM3/2/15
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <pha9fatbmgqdkaclb...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >The present actual world appears to be a long way short of any
>> >"best of all possible worlds"!
>>
>> If you could see the others you might change that opinion...
>The best of all possible world does not have to be a good one.
>"Resolved if the world was created, the creator has a lot to answer
>for."
Seconded.
>In article <pha9fatbmgqdkaclb...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >The present actual world appears to be a long way short of any
>> >"best of all possible worlds"!
>>
>> If you could see the others you might change that opinion...
>The best of all possible world does not have to be a good one.
>"Resolved if the world was created, the creator has a lot to answer
>for."
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Ymir
Mar 2, 2015, 3:29:53 PM3/2/15
to
In article <fea9fal2tmetjtf40...@4ax.com>,
The correct form is s/h/it.
Andre
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 19:23:19 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:
>
> >On 3/1/15 2:05 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>
> >>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
> >>> support that sort of thing.
> >>
> >> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
> >> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
> >> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
> >> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
> >> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
> >> of fashion.
> >
> >"Hir" for "his or her". Also "s/he", though it is not completely dead yet.
>
> "Heesh"
That's animism at its worst.
> On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 19:23:19 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:
>
> >On 3/1/15 2:05 PM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>
> >>> You can always stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!", and I fully
> >>> support that sort of thing.
> >>
> >> You seem to infer that taking a stand against a particular
> >> usage can be a good thing. I think you are begging the question,
> >> as the real question is "Has this ever worked".
> >> Hopefully, you can give an example where a stand was taken
> >> against a particular usage and later that usage went out
> >> of fashion.
> >
> >"Hir" for "his or her". Also "s/he", though it is not completely dead yet.
>
> "Heesh"
The correct form is s/h/it.
Andre
wpih...@gmail.com
Mar 2, 2015, 5:04:54 PM3/2/15
to
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 3:34:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> I have hopes for "infer" and "literally". But we'll see.
In both cases you are looking for the suppression of an established
> I have hopes for "infer" and "literally". But we'll see.
usage, in favour of one that is more clearly logical. While
I sympathize, I think that you have an Impossible Dream.
-William Hughes
http://xkcd.com/725/
Mark Isaak
Mar 2, 2015, 5:34:53 PM3/2/15
to
by a small number of self-appointed language policemen. I have in mind
the rules to never split infinitives and not using prepositions to end
sentences with. I don't know of any word meaning shifts for which the
same can be said. I would be surprised if there do *not* exist examples
of semantic shift back to an earlier meaning, but I cannot think of any,
much less any in which self-appointed authority was a factor.
> I have hopes for "infer" and "literally". But we'll see.
for when a political religious conservative announces that he is
literally going to raise hell.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel
A Nony Mouse
Mar 2, 2015, 5:39:52 PM3/2/15
to
Atheism is only a faith to those who cannot imagine a life without one.
Earle Jones27
Mar 2, 2015, 7:54:52 PM3/2/15
to
A recent Scientific American article would lead us to believe that we
are not even close to being the "best of all possible worlds."
The article describes what are called "superhabitable" planets –
planets whose age and environment would make a much better and suitable
place for such as us.
Bad design for Earth, if you ask me.
earle
*
(Atheist, populist, post-Christian humanist, naturally curly hair.)
Earle Jones27
Mar 2, 2015, 8:04:56 PM3/2/15
to
I don't regard this difference as "hairsplitting."
1. An agnostic is one who doesn't know whether there is a God or not.
2. An agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to know whether
there is a God or not.
To me, there is a load of difference.
earle
*
passer...@gmail.com
Mar 2, 2015, 8:04:56 PM3/2/15
to
Not sure, I suspect it wouldn't exist.
It's a math proof that science will never be able to describe the Universe, much less make it work, the Incompleteness Theorem/Halting Problem.
Yet it works.
Whatever makes it work, is God, by definition.
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 3:04:58 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> In article <20cb6a3c-317a-4ca9...@googlegroups.com>,
> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
> >
>
> What exactly would a universe that doesn't work look like?
>
> Andre
It's a math proof that science will never be able to describe the Universe, much less make it work, the Incompleteness Theorem/Halting Problem.
Yet it works.
Whatever makes it work, is God, by definition.
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 3:04:58 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> In article <20cb6a3c-317a-4ca9...@googlegroups.com>,
> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
> >
>
> What exactly would a universe that doesn't work look like?
>
passer...@gmail.com
Mar 2, 2015, 8:04:56 PM3/2/15
to
No, you call those people ignorant, string theory is toast, discredited, only a mother would love it. The current false passing fad is Membrane Theory.
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:29:57 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/1/15 5:07 AM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:34:59 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> If you want to call God/That Which Makes the
> >> Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
> >
> > Heretic. The FSM must always be referred to
> > correctly and anyone who
> > writes down his name must stone themselves
> > immediately.
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:29:57 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/1/15 5:07 AM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:34:59 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> If you want to call God/That Which Makes the
> >> Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
> >
> > Heretic. The FSM must always be referred to
> > correctly and anyone who
> > writes down his name must stone themselves
> > immediately.
>
> Some people know His name as "string theory". They may be misguided,
> but they are not heretics.
>
> Some people know His name as "string theory". They may be misguided,
> but they are not heretics.
>
passer...@gmail.com
Mar 2, 2015, 8:04:56 PM3/2/15
to
No, you have no evidence what color God is, you can call him the easter rabbit if you like, but you can't make any claims about eggs.
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 1:19:57 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:
> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >If you want to call God/That Which Makes the Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
>
> No, the God who makes the universe work is Zack, a black lab. You
> can ask him if you don't believe me.
>
> The flying spaghetti monster is the one who puts strands of causuality
> to work in the universe. Zack doesn't care about causuality, he only
> cares about squirrels. Indeed, the entire universe was created to
> bring forth squirrels. We are merely byproducts.
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 1:19:57 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:
> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >If you want to call God/That Which Makes the Universe work, the spaghetti monster, fine with me.
>
> can ask him if you don't believe me.
>
> The flying spaghetti monster is the one who puts strands of causuality
> to work in the universe. Zack doesn't care about causuality, he only
> cares about squirrels. Indeed, the entire universe was created to
> bring forth squirrels. We are merely byproducts.
passer...@gmail.com
Mar 2, 2015, 8:09:52 PM3/2/15
to
God, by definition is what makes the universe work, if it works, there's a God.
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 6:14:56 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:40:57 -0800 (PST), passer...@gmail.com
>
>
> Neither is God.
>
>
> >On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
> >>
> >> earle
> >> *
>
> --
> Intelligence is never insulting.
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 6:14:56 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:40:57 -0800 (PST), passer...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
> >
> >Glad to help.
>
> >The flying spaghetti monster isn't required to make the Universe work.
> >
>
>
> Neither is God.
>
>
> >On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >> On 2015-02-27 02:56:30 +0000, Dale said:
> >>
> >> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
> >> >
> >>
> >> > does any atheist have any evidence that God does not exist?
> >> >
> >> > if atheists are waiting for evidence, doesn't that make them agnostics?
> >>
> >> *
> >>
> >> I also have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
> >>
> >> earle
> >> *
>
> --
> Intelligence is never insulting.
A Nony Mouse
Mar 2, 2015, 8:29:52 PM3/2/15
to
In article <ede621f2-4564-4de3...@googlegroups.com>,
So your god is merely a wound up watchspring of the universal watch!
So your god is merely a wound up watchspring of the universal watch!
Earle Jones27
Mar 2, 2015, 8:29:52 PM3/2/15
to
"Events of sufficiently low probabiity do not occur."
– Emile Borel (French mathematician 1871-1956)
Neal Stevens takes the practical approach:
"If the sum of credible evidence we have is that the universe lacks
anything like a god, then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that
there isn't one."
--Neal M. Stevens
earle
*
A Nony Mouse
Mar 2, 2015, 8:29:52 PM3/2/15
to
In article <7a9f740e-3d65-4741...@googlegroups.com>,
passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> No, you have no evidence what color God is, you can call him the easter
> rabbit if you like, but you can't make any claims about eggs.
Does your imagined god colour her eggs or merely lay them?
> No, you have no evidence what color God is, you can call him the easter
> rabbit if you like, but you can't make any claims about eggs.
Virgil
Mar 2, 2015, 8:34:51 PM3/2/15
to
In article <2015030217020779942-earlejones@comcastnet>,
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
Earle Jones27 <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't regard this difference as "hairsplitting."
>
> 1. An agnostic is one who doesn't know whether there is a God or not.
>
> 2. An agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to know whether
> there is a God or not.
>
> To me, there is a load of difference.
An agnostic is anyone whom T.H.Huxley says is agnostic!
> I don't regard this difference as "hairsplitting."
>
> 1. An agnostic is one who doesn't know whether there is a God or not.
>
> 2. An agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to know whether
> there is a God or not.
>
> To me, there is a load of difference.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
passer...@gmail.com
Mar 2, 2015, 9:39:52 PM3/2/15
to
Neither, that's your demented forum atheist god.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages