Why people like Brian Bilek have no excuse.
Nerd Gerl
"In logical debate, the burden of proof is always upon the person
making the positive assertion. This principle is rather simple,
but also rather deceptive. There exists a standard formation of a
question to determine whether or not the proposition is indeed
a positive assertion. As a common example, many people claim that
those who claim that gods do not exist have the burden of
proof, just as much in fact as those who claim that gods do exist.
First of all, it should be perfectly clear to all that those who
claim that "gods exist" have the burden of proof.
However, **********those who claim that "gods do not exist"
----------are in fact making an assertion--------, but a negative
one**********.
************The standard formation of the ----------assertion--------
is Not There Exists gods.**************
From this formation, it becomes clear that although it is indeed an
assertion, it is not a positive assertion and does not in argument
have the full burden of proof.
However, *********the burden of proof may be --------properly
shifted------- to such a person********** however if a prima facie
case is established, which brings us to the next point.
Some people do not really understand the why on that last point, so I
shall attempt to explain further. The reason that a negative claim
does not have the full burden of proof is because of the fact that
they are claiming something to be false. To prove that in science is
nearly impossible.
While *************that hardly excuses a proposition************, it
is however a form of default position.
If one assumes that things are false until shown otherwise, one is not
likely to believe a positive assertion without reason, and that
is part of the point of having the burden of proof--to avoid believing
something is established when it has not yet been so.
However, ************one is in danger of believing something false
that is true**********, for this reason, there ********is some burden
of proof on the belief in the negative***********.
Again, the burden is to establish a prima facie case in support of
ones position. Once one has done that, then one has established at
least a reasonable reason for ones position. The phrase Burden of
Proof is deceptive, for it doesn't mean rock solid proof, it means
establishing of a rational case in defense of the position. "
MG
Nerd Gerl wrote:
>
> However, *********the burden of proof may be --------properly
> shifted------- to such a person********** however if a prima facie
> case is established, which brings us to the next point.
>
> Some people do not really understand the why on that last point, so I
> shall attempt to explain further. The reason that a negative claim
> does not have the full burden of proof is because of the fact that
> they are claiming something to be false. To prove that in science is
> nearly impossible.
>
It really depends on what the statement is.
Consider:
1) A cat exists
2) Not (a cat exists)
(1) is a positive existential claim. (2) is a negative existential
claim. Who has the burden of proof? Simply put, whoever made the claim -
it does not matter which claim it is.
Your argument is presumably based on this: It is clear that to show that
(1) is *true* is relatively easy from a scientific perspective - we
simply demonstrate the existence of a cat. We find a cat and show it.
(2) is much harder to show to be *true* because we might, in principle,
have to search the entire universe to establish its truth. Hence, as a
default position, it is more rational to believe (2).
But that applies only if believing (1) or believing (2) were the only
options. They aren't - we might simply suspend judgement until there was
some evidence.
The burden of proof lies squarely on whoever makes a claim. The fact
that (2) is much harder to establish is irrelevant to the fact that they
shoulder full responsibility for establishing the truth of their claims.
Often, we hear talk about a "default position" in science. This is
confusing because it makes it sound like scientists automatically
believe that nothing exists unless it is proven to exist. They don't.
They actually suspend judgement and the "default position" is simply a
methodological stance which says no more, in effect, than "don't believe
that there are Xs unless you have evidence of Xs". The impression that
there is a bias against the positive existential is simply the result of
the fact that most of the time scientists would be trying to prove the
positive existential, because it is usually easier than proving the
negative existential.
Secondly, not all negative existential claims are more difficult to
establish than the positive. Consider
3) An elephant exists in my bedroom.
This is no more difficult to establish than
4) Not (An elephant exists in my bedroom).
MG
angelicusrex
"W.Syme" <w.syme....@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> Weak. While it's true that it cannot be said with absolute certainty
> that God doesn't exist, it is however reasonable to believe something
> untrue until the opposite has been proven.
Right, so by that logic the Pope and the Church was right to be in absolute
denial of Galileo, Darwin, Columbus et al, until they were proven to be
absolutely correct.
It is never "reasonable" to believe anything to be untrue simply because you
have no knowledge of it. Though a murderer is innocent until proven guilty
in this country, it is pretty reasonable to conclude that persons do murder
one another and that it could be the person charged with the crime and
arrested so that one can bring it to trial. Why not give God believers the
same rights? Innocent until you prove they are guilty of fallacious beliefs?
or would that mean you would have to do some work, Mr. Prosecutor?
> While I cannot say with certainty that goblins do not exist, it is
> reasonable to believe they do not until the opposite is proven.
Why is this reasonable? What is a goblin. How do they exist? What is
existence? Why might they exist for some and not for others? Why are you
comparing goblins to God? Isn't that sort of like comparing unicorns to
human beings? As far as I know in the history of the world the Supreme being
has never been equated with goblins. Although goblins have been equated with
angels, aliens and other strange manifestations beyond the ken of men. But I
suppose by simply not investigating goblins, they will go away, especially
if you simply stop believing in them.
>Would
> you disagree with that?
Oh, most certainly!
Where are the goblins you ask? Why don't you go look for some? I looked for
God and found God. But I found out I couldn't bring Him back in a cage for
your entertainment. Turns out everyone has to go look for themselves. He's a
bit too big to bag up and display at the zoo. As for goblins, they are
slippery little devils and apt to escape one's clutches. Then they go and
play havok with your computer! Best to leave them alone, like scorpions and
King cobras.
Saint
Nerd Gerl
>On 29 Feb 2004 00:43:02 -0800, nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
>
>>http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html says:
>>
>>snip
>
>Weak. While it's true that it cannot be said with absolute certainty
>that God doesn't exist, it is however reasonable to believe something
>untrue until the opposite has been proven.
>
>you disagree with that?
It would be reasonable to accept the possibility that goblins exists.
Nothing more - nothing less.
By believing goblins do *not* exist - you are *already* using a
certainty (that you said you couldn't use).
See the contradiction?
>--
>Where are the goblins?
--
"Behind every great man, there is a woman telling him what to think!"
Stranger
"angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c1tfcq$1nm2v8$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "W.Syme" <w.syme....@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>
> > Weak. While it's true that it cannot be said with absolute certainty
> > that God doesn't exist, it is however reasonable to believe something
> > untrue until the opposite has been proven.
>
> Right, so by that logic the Pope and the Church was right to be in
absolute
> denial of Galileo, Darwin, Columbus et al, until they were proven to be
> absolutely correct.
>
Didnt they decided that it be flat anyway? no devine being of some kind
telling them the truth!
Besides they saw the earth was curbed 500 BC in Greece.
This just absolutely proof's religioun has no idea of what its claiming,
then calling themselfs the true truth and nothing but the truth...its
rediculus. They want power and money thats it, the sheep will obey there
doctrinated fears and natural fears.
-Stranger
angelicusrex
The Church KNEW the earth was round and a sphere. They knew before Columbus
that the New World could be reached by sea going west. They even understood
there was probably another continent out there. They just wanted CONTROL of
the situation.
So it was absolutely unreasonable for them to believe the earth was flat or
that the sun circled us. People like being unreasonable. It makes them feel
powerful.
Saint
"Stranger" <ath...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:40424fe8$0$557$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Elf M. Sternberg
> However, those who claim that "gods do not exist" are in fact making
> an assertion, but a negative one.
Which is perfectly valid if one starts with premises about the
nature of the universe which preclude the existence of God. It's a bit
like arguing about life on Earth's second moon-- we can dimsiss the
entire enterprise from the beginning by pointing out that the Earth has
no second moon.
In order to argue whether or not God exists, one must first
determine whether or not the participants in the discussion agree that
the universe provides precedent for God. I argue that it does not, and
everyone else, with the exception of a few crazies in the Christian
Science and similar movements, also acts as if it does not: they act as
if the universe is completely naturalistic. They respond to a
naturalistic universe that has no evidence of God, ever.
The only time they argue for a non-naturalistic universe is when
the naturalistic explanation becomes inconvenient, or when the
naturalistic explanation threatens their tribal cohesion. Hence we get
absurd movements like "prayer for the president" and "intelligent
design," both of which rely on non-evidentiary or contra-evidentiary
mechanisms for their rhetorical points.
The problem with this point is that, unfortunately, there is no
burden of proof to be shifted. Both positions are axiomatic-- the
universe is/is not naturalistic in its behavior-- and when you've boiled
a debated down to contradictory axioms there is no room for debate.
(Obviously, you *can* try to shift participant's point of view
by pointing out where the axiom under question in inherently
contradictory with other axioms they hold dear, such as in issues of
free will or moral culpability, but that's a harder issue than a simple
discussion of a single point.)
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Proud to be an Extinctionist
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
Nisi mecum concubueris, phobistae vicerint.
Stranger
> Dear Stranger...
>
> The Church KNEW the earth was round and a sphere. They knew before
Columbus
> that the New World could be reached by sea going west. They even
understood
> there was probably another continent out there. They just wanted CONTROL
of
> the situation.
>
Ofcourse... CONTROLE = POWER and MONEY.
Thanks for reafirming my point.
-Stranger
Mark Richardson
You can be an atheist - be a godless person - not have a god -
irrespective of saying or claiming or arguing anything.
It's not saying "God does not exist" that makes one an atheist.
It is not believing in a god that makes one an atheist.
So all the above verbiage is irrelevant to whether or not YOU should
be an atheist or not.
Or in other words "So what?"
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Earnest
"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:6ma540lsbp6l8fh3i...@4ax.com...
Double talk. Saying God does not exist means the same thing as not
believing in a God.
Stranger
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:c1uav5$i...@library2.airnews.net...
Okay then for example ill claim "there is a sandwitch laying on Pluto", what
do you reply with in this case?
Most people would say thats a stupid thing to claim, Atheist say the same
about a god.
But refute in a way of curtesy and say "do not believe".
-Stranger
Mark Richardson
So?
I never claimed it did.
Brian Bilek
<snip>
>
>However, **********those who claim that "gods do not exist"
>----------are in fact making an assertion--------, but a negative
>one**********.
>
Troll, what you are apparently unable to understand, in spite of being
corrected, is that no "weak" atheist claims that gods do not exist.
Such an assertion would need to be supported. Unfortunately, you have
fallen flat on your face...as usual.
-Brian
<snip>
(Spam filter: Add my first initial to the forefront of my email address to contact me directly.)
Mark Earnest
I would say that you would know that there is no sandwich on Pluto.
> Most people would say thats a stupid thing to claim, Atheist say the same
> about a god.
> But refute in a way of curtesy and say "do not believe".
O.K., it is a courtesy. Thank you. Just don't deny that it is your opinion
that "there is no God." That makes it impossible to get to square one with
you guys.
Mark Earnest
"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
You just did. You claim to be an atheist, right? And you just said that
atheism does not assume that there is no God. That is a bunch of baloney.
Atheism means belief that there is no God, and that is the category that
those that say in their hearts "there is no God" fall into.
It is an indefensible position. But that is the position you fall into.
Admit it.
Stranger
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
How do you know there is no sandwitch on Pluto?
> > Most people would say thats a stupid thing to claim, Atheist say the
same
> > about a god.
> > But refute in a way of curtesy and say "do not believe".
>
> O.K., it is a courtesy. Thank you. Just don't deny that it is your
opinion
> that "there is no God."
>That makes it impossible to get to square one with
> you guys.
>
Yup that goes both way's, like i wrote above about the sandwitch and Pluto,
you simply do not ask people if there is such a thing, yet religious people
attempt to make us see what has never been observed. Simply something we
dont want to be asked. imo its for the fundy's to live with and they may
keep it to themselfs imo.
-Stranger
Nerd Gerl
>
>>
>>However, **********those who claim that "gods do not exist"
>>----------are in fact making an assertion--------, but a negative
>>one**********.
>>
>
When you find out who you've been talking to and believing (i.e.
angelicusrex) - you're going to feel like the sphincter you smell like
right now. Talk about gullibility - you're no different than the
theists you ridicule! That's why I'm enjoying watching you make a fool
out yourself.
Please continue your "intellectual conversations" with angelicusrex.
This is just as good as those asinine FOX TV reality shows... you know
- the one's where dummies fall for anything and get burned at the end
for everyone's entertainment??
LOL
>what you are apparently unable to understand, in spite of being
>corrected, is that no "weak" atheist claims that gods do not exist.
What you are apparently too stupid to understand, despite being shown
the url, is that quote came from a website. Yet you're foolish enough
to argue about it with me as if I'm the author. How do you manage to
get through traffic with reading skills like that???
>Such an assertion would need to be supported. Unfortunately, you
have
>fallen flat on your face...as usual.
Unfortunately, you have fallen flat on your **inherit inability** to
read a gotdamn url. What a joke!
Mark Richardson
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
Nope. Never happened.
> You claim to be an atheist, right?
I am godless - an unbeliever - without a god - a -theos - yes to all.
> And you just said that
>atheism does not assume that there is no God.
No I didnt.
> That is a bunch of baloney.
Then don't say it!
>Atheism means belief that there is no God,
That is one meaning - not the most general.
Check out a dictionary or two.
> and that is the category that
>those that say in their hearts "there is no God" fall into.
>
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
Calling people who don't believe as you do "fools" is taking an easy
shot.
>It is an indefensible position. But that is the position you fall into.
>Admit it.
I admit I am Godless, an unbeliever, an infidel.
I admit I don't recognize (the existence or holiness of) God or his
Son. I admit I do not love God, I do not fear God, I do not wish to be
with God, I do not look to God for guidence or morality ...
I admit I am very content to be Godless - an unbeliever - an infidel.
Do I sound atheist "enough" fo you?
Stranger
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
There is weak Atheism and strong Atheism, doesnt make things more easy
ofcourse.
You really shouldnt see Atheists as they are written about in your bible,
when a Atheist say's "believe" he is not asserting to a bible at all, let
alone that we say in our hearts "there is no god" as it maybe written there.
We think with our heads and we do not have special feelings towards a god of
any kind when we say anything.
I understand that religious people are talked into feeling something special
when there god is mentioned, this usually gets indoctrinated from childhood
and is in fact very sad, it is used to keep the church in power, it is a
psychological trick they thought up in the past as a propaganda/warfare
machine to lead there tribes and keep themselfs into power.
They have used this pretty much on all fragile things of the mind, like
love - the good god idea, the feeling of being spyed on, a hunting
instinct - God(tm) see's all, fear of death - after life, fear of being lied
to - the god (tm) knows and punishes, fear of the other group of people -
hate, the unknown - god(tm) knows all. It is very sad that alot of people
are stuck into this fear system which was cleverly made to do just that,
leaders leading people under false pretences.
-Stranger
Nerd Gerl
alt.religion.angels right now, who are watching your interaction w/
the infamous S'aint David Allbuns and simply shaking their heads... at
YOU.
Mark Earnest
"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
No it doesn't. You haven't admityed to what you assume...that there is no
God. Because you know that what you assume is indefensible.
Mark Earnest
The same way you do. There just isn't one there. Any realistic person
knows that.
>
> > > Most people would say thats a stupid thing to claim, Atheist say the
> same
> > > about a god.
> > > But refute in a way of curtesy and say "do not believe".
> >
> > O.K., it is a courtesy. Thank you. Just don't deny that it is your
> opinion
> > that "there is no God."
>
> >That makes it impossible to get to square one with
> > you guys.
> >
>
> Yup that goes both way's, like i wrote above about the sandwitch and
Pluto,
> you simply do not ask people if there is such a thing, yet religious
people
> attempt to make us see what has never been observed. Simply something we
> dont want to be asked. imo its for the fundy's to live with and they may
> keep it to themselfs imo.
You just said that atheists don't need to claim that there is no God.
What are you doing on an atheist group, then?
You don't admit what you believe, because you know it cannot be proven that
there is no God. That means you make the same mistake that you accuse
theists of making: assuming things without evidence...without one shred of
evidence.
Mark Earnest
Everyone knows that to be an atheist means to say in your heart, "there is
no God." It is obvious. At least be adult enough to admit what you stand
for.
>
> I understand that religious people are talked into feeling something
special
> when there god is mentioned, this usually gets indoctrinated from
childhood
> and is in fact very sad, it is used to keep the church in power, it is a
> psychological trick they thought up in the past as a propaganda/warfare
> machine to lead there tribes and keep themselfs into power.
> They have used this pretty much on all fragile things of the mind, like
> love - the good god idea, the feeling of being spyed on, a hunting
> instinct - God(tm) see's all, fear of death - after life, fear of being
lied
> to - the god (tm) knows and punishes, fear of the other group of people -
> hate, the unknown - god(tm) knows all. It is very sad that alot of people
> are stuck into this fear system which was cleverly made to do just that,
> leaders leading people under false pretences.
My knowledge of God has nothing to do with fear. I was persuaded by men
whom merely showed me where to find life, and then demonstrated that life to
me. As well as irrefutable logic.
Mark Richardson
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
OK If it gets you off.
I admit that I assume that God does not exist.
(Note: this doesnt say anything about atheism in General)
Is it "indefensible"?
I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
The assumption of the Non existence of God - is not in conflict with
anything I know to be true about the world, so it doesnt seem to need
defending.
Show there is a problem with the assumption and I will do something
about it.
Until then...
TehGhodTrole
He isn't doing to well in alt.atheism either...
Brian Bilek wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2004 10:09:49 GMT, "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Brian Bilek wrote:
>>> On 29 Feb 2004 05:32:53 GMT, "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> It must be terrible for these atheists being presented with logical
>>>> arguments that completely destroy their beliefs, eh.
>>>
>>> Sounds great! Would you please point me to an argument that will
>>> completely destroy my beliefs?
>>
>> Er, you must first assert a belief, or lack thereof, that is open to
>> scrutiny and argument. Asserting a belief that no gods exist is
>> always a good starting point if you're looking for one.
>>
>> Anyway, for your question, I will now deduct 1 point off your score
>> in the Baptism by Fire Illogical Nitwit Identification Process.
>>
>> When I apply the Baptism by Fire Illogical Nitwit Identification
>> Process, I always give a score out of 10. When someone wants
>> to dispute or discuss something with me, they must achieve a
>> score of 7.5 out of 10. I will go down to 7 out of 10 if I'm
>> feeling particularly magnanimous.
>>
>> Your score in the Baptism by Fire Illogical Nitwit Identification
>> Process was set at 7 for your apparent reasonabless in the post
>> about science, experiment and hypothesis. Your score now stands
>> at 6 out of 10.
>
> Did you not follow another thread in which I stated my position (i.e.
> I am an atheist)? Must I repeat my views every time we have a
> discussion?
>
> I would be happy to do so, however I would find it tiresome, so I
> prefer not to unless necessary.
No. I clearly told you that before I will enter a discussion, you
must first establish your worthiness. Just because you now state that
you are atheist, it does not logically follow that you have actually
defined anything that can be remotely called a definition of your own
atheism, viz a belief or understanding of one kind or another.
If I assert that I am atheist, it implies what, other than I am
atheist? Or would you have me accept the odd notion that all forms
of atheism are, by definition, the same?
I have decided to deduct 1 from your score. Your score in the
Baptism by Fire Illogical Nitwit Identification Process now
stands at 5 out of 10. That is on the grounds that it is absurd
to attempt to have someone agree that "I am atheist" somehow
conveys any notion of belief at all. The assertion that "I am an
athiest" implies only that you are atheist. Nothing else.
I had considered the possibility that you might be able to rescue
yourself from ignominy by clearly defining what your atheism means
to you. However I have decided that you cannot rescue yourself
from ignominy at all at this time on the grounds that at no point
did you ever state to me, by way of direct statement, or even remote
allusion to the idea, that you were in fact an atheist.
Read that again. At no time did you make any such allusion, either
directly or indirectly. I will add two points to your score if you
can show that you did. In the meantime, I am deducting another 1
point from your score. Your score in the Baptism by Fire Illogical
Nitwit Identification Process now stands at 4 out of 10.
Now, you may feel the need to assert some kind of capriciousness,
but I would caution you against it on the grounds that to do so
would be akin to denying the empircial evidence that indicates
you are indeed way out of little league when it comes to reasoned
discussion.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
TehGhodTrole
> I admit that I assume that God does not exist.
> (Note: this doesnt say anything about atheism in General)
>
> Is it "indefensible"?
> I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
It doesn't need defending at all unless there is another unstated assumption
that calls for evidence or proof.
HTH and HAND
Oh, yes, I told a another porky about the plonk.
Nick
Why should he have to "defend" anything? Last I checked, atheism was, for the
most part, a lack of belief in the god claim. If the theists want an average,
lack-of-belief atheist to accept the god claim as true, then they can pony up
some solid evidence for it, just like anyone else with a fantastic claim can.
It seems silly to me that theists can get away with all this falacious
burden-shifting so often, and yet if someone were to do the same thing
regarding leprechauns and UFOs, they'd be laughed out of the country. Yeesh.
*********************************************
"Plutonians are teh suk." Ignignot from ATHF
Mark Earnest
"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
It is indefensible. There is no way to prove that there is no God.
Atheists have been trying it for thousands of years, and not one of them
has ever succeeded.
Mark Earnest
"TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:OhOyIrMF7TMrA0126EAE...@kadaitcha.cx...
> Mark Richardson wrote:
>
> > I admit that I assume that God does not exist.
> > (Note: this doesnt say anything about atheism in General)
> >
> > Is it "indefensible"?
> > I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
>
> It doesn't need defending at all unless there is another unstated
assumption
> that calls for evidence or proof.
Whether there is a God or not...there is no way to defend the position that
there is no God.
Let's see you offer some evidence that there is no God.
Let's see you offer some proof, like atheists demand of theists.
TehGhodTrole
> "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:OhOyIrMF7TMrA0126EAE...@kadaitcha.cx...
>> Mark Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> I admit that I assume that God does not exist.
>>> (Note: this doesnt say anything about atheism in General)
>>>
>>> Is it "indefensible"?
>>> I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
>>
>> It doesn't need defending at all unless there is another unstated
>> assumption that calls for evidence or proof.
>
> Whether there is a God or not...there is no way to defend the
> position that there is no God.
Correct. Well, not logically anyway. There's always wild
assertion though.
> Let's see you offer some evidence that there is no God.
> Let's see you offer some proof, like atheists demand of theists.
What? Are you mad, man? You happen to be replying to one of the
few theists who knows that there is neither evidence nor proof
for any metaphysical X, no matter what you label it or what
properties you ascribe to it.
Would you please explain your apparent faux pas. Thank you.
Brian Bilek
<snipped troll garbage>
You do know what <PLONK> means, don't you?
Brian Bilek
wrote:
<snip>
>
>He isn't doing to well in alt.atheism either...
>
Oh come on, I wanted to joke around with you. I thought you were up
for it given your responses to the thread in which you called Nerd
Gerl (the person you are agreeing with here), and I quote, "entirely
stupid."
If you want to shoot me down for not being logical, go ahead, but at
least do it in response to a thread where I'm actually trying to be
logical :)
-Brian
<snipped repost>
Nerd Gerl
>
><snipped troll garbage>
>
>You do know what <PLONK> means, don't you?
Yes - it means you show up on my computer as blue - my choice to read or not.
Still think I'm a troll?
Nerd Gerl = Boggle
LOL
Bilek = Puppet (no strings attached)
Nerd Gerl
>>He isn't doing to well in alt.atheism either...
>>
>
>Oh come on, I wanted to joke around with you. I thought you were up
>for it given your responses to the thread in which you called Nerd
>Gerl (the person you are agreeing with here), and I quote, "entirely
>stupid."
Anyone call you a transparent follow-the-puppet mindless piece of
kiss-ass lately? If not, slap the shit out of them for me.
TehGhodTrole
> "Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
>> I admit that I assume that God does not exist.
>> (Note: this doesnt say anything about atheism in General)
>>
>> Is it "indefensible"?
>> I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
>
> It is indefensible. There is no way to prove that there is no God.
> Atheists have been trying it for thousands of years, and not one of
> them has ever succeeded.
Hang on. That's not right at all. Look:
I grant that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of
God. That gets that problem out of the way.
Now, how does it logically follow then that is unreasonable to
"assume that God does not exist"?
It is entirely unreasonable to assert that "God does not exist",
but it is also entirely unreasonable for you to extrapolate his
freely offered assumption into a claim of any kind.
He made no claim that God does not exist. He merely said that
he assumes that "God does not exist." An assumption is not
a claim.
Now, the only way you can force him to turn his assumption into
any kind of implied claim is if you can get him to admit that
his assumption proceeds from another assumption, viz a viz
the need for evidence.
You are misguided and you owe him an apology, even if he is
an atheist infidel.
Brian Bilek
Here, I will offer up the beginning of a discussion, and you can feel
free to shoot me down. Unlike my attempt at humor, I intend this to
be a serious discussion:
I consider myself a weak atheist. By this I mean that I hold a lack
of belief in any of the gods that people claim to be real. I do not
deny the possibility that there could be a god, but assume that the
claims people make for the existence of gods are not valid due to lack
of evidence.
Now, Nerd Gerl has parroted a web site which summarizes where the
burden of proof falls in a logical argument. It contains this
section: "However, those who claim that "gods do not exist" are in
fact making an assertion, but a negative one."
I state that I have not made this claim. Through not receiving the
supporting evidence which should accompany a claim that a god exists,
I find no such claim to be valid. The burden of proof remains on the
claimant.
Cheers,
-Brian
TehGhodTrole
> On 1 Mar 2004 05:28:40 GMT, "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> He isn't doing to well in alt.atheism either...
>>
>
> Oh come on, I wanted to joke around with you.
I know. Now it's my turn to joke around with you :)
Your idea of fun isn't the same as mine.
I've replied to your other post, BTW. It would be great
if you'd spend a bit of time on it and we'll get
started.
Regards,
Mark Earnest
It would do no good unless you tell me that you are an atheist, and that you
therefore assume that there is no God.
Mark Earnest
> Mark Earnest wrote:
> > "Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
>
> >> I admit that I assume that God does not exist.
> >> (Note: this doesnt say anything about atheism in General)
> >>
> >> Is it "indefensible"?
> >> I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
> >
> > It is indefensible. There is no way to prove that there is no God.
> > Atheists have been trying it for thousands of years, and not one of
> > them has ever succeeded.
>
> Hang on. That's not right at all. Look:
>
> I grant that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of
> God. That gets that problem out of the way.
>
> Now, how does it logically follow then that is unreasonable to
> "assume that God does not exist"?
Because that is what I always hear atheists claim about theists doing: of
assuming something without proof. How can an atheist say it is not O.K. for
a theist to assume without proof, when he himself does that very thing?
> It is entirely unreasonable to assert that "God does not exist",
> but it is also entirely unreasonable for you to extrapolate his
> freely offered assumption into a claim of any kind.
>
> He made no claim that God does not exist. He merely said that
> he assumes that "God does not exist." An assumption is not
> a claim.
Well, it almost is. Not as direct as a claim, but almost.
> Now, the only way you can force him to turn his assumption into
> any kind of implied claim is if you can get him to admit that
> his assumption proceeds from another assumption, viz a viz
> the need for evidence.
>
> You are misguided and you owe him an apology, even if he is
> an atheist infidel.
I apologize if I said anything diminishing, that was not my intention.
I just want reality to be apparent, no matter what it happens to be.
Nerd Gerl
>free to shoot me down. Unlike my attempt at humor, I intend this to
>be a serious discussion:
>
>I consider myself a weak atheist. By this I mean that I hold a lack
>of belief in any of the gods that people claim to be real. I do not
>deny the possibility that there could be a god, but assume that the
>claims people make for the existence of gods are not valid due to lack
>of evidence.
>
>Now, Nerd Gerl has parroted a web site which summarizes where the
>burden of proof falls in a logical argument. It contains this
>section: "However, those who claim that "gods do not exist" are in
>fact making an assertion, but a negative one."
>
>I state that I have not made this claim. Through not receiving the
>supporting evidence which should accompany a claim that a god exists,
>I find no such claim to be valid. The burden of proof remains on the
>claimant.
I see you're still trying to weasle out your responsibility to think.
Why the f*k else would you disown %1 of an argument? You certainly employ
the remaining 99% of the argument to suit your weak position. But you choose
to discard the key that holds you responsible for the entire statement?
You give wuss a new name: "Bill Bilek".
TehGhodTrole
> "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
[snip]
> Because that is what I always hear atheists claim about theists
> doing:
So, it's ok for you to do it if they do it, is it? It's ok
for you to lend credence to their claims that all theists are
untrustworthy and illogical twits is it?
Proceeding from his stated assumption, he could also have said
that he assumes God might not exist, but he would not have
made a claim. Assumptions are used to support claims. They are
not claims in themselves.
>> He made no claim that God does not exist. He merely said that
>> he assumes that "God does not exist." An assumption is not
>> a claim.
>
> Well, it almost is. Not as direct as a claim, but almost.
Almost is not good enough. It is nefarious to take an assumption
and make it into a claim. All you can do is validate the
assumption and try to detect if there are one or more other
assumptions driving it.
That makes one no better than the atheist who makes mad assertions
about what was and was not said or implied.
>> Now, the only way you can force him to turn his assumption into
>> any kind of implied claim is if you can get him to admit that
>> his assumption proceeds from another assumption, viz a viz
>> the need for evidence.
>>
>> You are misguided and you owe him an apology, even if he is
>> an atheist infidel.
>
> I apologize if I said anything diminishing, that was not my intention.
> I just want reality to be apparent, no matter what it happens to be.
The reality is, he did not make a claim. You don't have to apologise
to me. You only need to be reasonable with your opponent, who, I will
add, I have got scored right down to zero on account of his nitwittery,
But that does not detract from the matter of his assumption being
taken as a claim. It is unfair and unreasonable. You have to
interrogate him and pin him down on inconsistency if you want to
be fair.
Mark Earnest
> Mark Earnest wrote:
> > "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> > Because that is what I always hear atheists claim about theists
> > doing:
>
> So, it's ok for you to do it if they do it, is it?
It's only fair. If atheists are entitled to proof that there is a God,
theists are entitled to proof that there is no God. So it is unfair, when a
theist asserts that God exists, for an atheist to require proof of that,
unless he can provide proof of his own position, too.
It's ok
> for you to lend credence to their claims that all theists are
> untrustworthy and illogical twits is it?
>
> Proceeding from his stated assumption, he could also have said
> that he assumes God might not exist, but he would not have
> made a claim. Assumptions are used to support claims. They are
> not claims in themselves.
I thought that posting on an atheist newsgroup, and crossposting to other
groups, was an attempt to further atheist views. Which is a challenge to
some. To challenge theism (belief in existence of God) is to claim that
atheism (belief in no existence of God) is reality. A challenge is a claim
that there is no God.
So if an atheist challenges a theist in this way, he has made the claim that
his view that there is no God, is in fact correct.
<snipped rest, it is covered by preceding>
TehGhodTrole
Thanks.
Ok, I read all of that twice and now I will snip it to get to the
core of the first problem...
> I hold a lack of belief in any [of the] gods
Let's boil that down to this...
"I hold a lack of belief in any gods".
To me that looks notionally the same as what you first stated.
Please say so if you disagree.
The word hold implies a number of possibilities:
1. To possess an understanding of the nature or meaning or
quality or magnitude of something
2. To have or hold in one's grip; to have as an idea
3. To have or possess, either in a concrete or an
abstract sense
4. Maintain a theory, thoughts, or feelings
5. Remain committed to; to subscribe to, as an idea
6. To be in accord; be in agreement
There are other possibilities, but I've chosen what I
think are the most appropriate meanings for the word
in context. Would you please detail what you actually
mean by the word hold in the context of the statement
"I hold a lack of belief in any gods".
TehGhodTrole
> "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:L0DgoYFyaTVlD871E0BC...@kadaitcha.cx...
>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Because that is what I always hear atheists claim about theists
>>> doing:
>>
>> So, it's ok for you to do it if they do it, is it?
>
> It's only fair.
It's not. It's dishonest.
> If atheists are entitled to proof that there is a God,
> theists are entitled to proof that there is no God.
How is that logical at all when neither can show any proof?
> So it is unfair,
> when a theist asserts that God exists, for an atheist to require
> proof of that, unless he can provide proof of his own position, too.
You have to deal with that using your smarts. You aren't going
to get anywhere by doing what they do.
> I thought that posting on an atheist newsgroup, and crossposting to
> other groups, was an attempt to further atheist views.
Or to troll and stir up mischief maybe?
> Which is a
> challenge to some. To challenge theism (belief in existence of God)
> is to claim that atheism (belief in no existence of God) is reality.
No it is not. Not by any stretch of the wild imagination. To challenge
theism is to challenge theism, nothing more. If the other person
then makes unfounded claims then you pounce, not before by imagining
them to be there when they're not.
The only correct position that holds any hope is that there's no
proof either way. If you stick to that and don't get bogged down
in the other person's nitwittery, you can't lose. But creating
imaginary claims where there are none isn't going to get you
anywhere except into people's killfiles, and maybe identified
as an object of ridicule.
> A challenge is a claim that there is no God.
>
> So if an atheist challenges a theist in this way, he has made the
> claim that his view that there is no God, is in fact correct.
Rubbish. You are headed for a mass plonking. That is all you are
going to achieve, other than maybe getting nominated for
the grand atheist award... theist nitwit of the month.
I will leave you to create imaginary claims where none exist. You
need to get on with being plonked by the hundreds and being
identified as an object of ridicule. With your illogical and
unreasonable attitude, I dare say you deserve it.
Reasonableness is your friend, but you don't seem to realise
that at all.
Mark Earnest
> Mark Earnest wrote:
> > "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
> > news:L0DgoYFyaTVlD871E0BC...@kadaitcha.cx...
> >> Mark Earnest wrote:
> >>> "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> Because that is what I always hear atheists claim about theists
> >>> doing:
> >>
> >> So, it's ok for you to do it if they do it, is it?
> >
> > It's only fair.
>
the standards he sets for others.
>
> > If atheists are entitled to proof that there is a God,
> > theists are entitled to proof that there is no God.
>
> How is that logical at all when neither can show any proof?
Because every time I say anything about my reality, that there is a God,
atheists require proof, without giving any proof of their position, that
there is no God, at all.
> > So it is unfair,
> > when a theist asserts that God exists, for an atheist to require
> > proof of that, unless he can provide proof of his own position, too.
>
> You have to deal with that using your smarts. You aren't going
> to get anywhere by doing what they do.
It may get atheists to become agnostics, realizing there is no solid proof
that there is no God. If one has no proof, one does not know. And the
illusion of truth is the greatest enemy to ignorance.
>
> > I thought that posting on an atheist newsgroup, and crossposting to
> > other groups, was an attempt to further atheist views.
>
> Or to troll and stir up mischief maybe?
Maybe, for some. Others are serious about their atheism.
>
> > Which is a
> > challenge to some. To challenge theism (belief in existence of God)
> > is to claim that atheism (belief in no existence of God) is reality.
>
> No it is not. Not by any stretch of the wild imagination. To challenge
> theism is to challenge theism, nothing more.
To challenge what theism is, belief in God existing, is to say God does not
exist. Just like saying a coin that does not come up heads when tossed, is
tails.
If the other person
> then makes unfounded claims then you pounce, not before by imagining
> them to be there when they're not.
People should not set standards for others that they are not prepared to
live up to.
>
> The only correct position that holds any hope is that there's no
> proof either way.
If that is someone's view, he should be an agnostic. Which would be good,
as I said, because it is better not to know that know something false.
If you stick to that and don't get bogged down
> in the other person's nitwittery, you can't lose. But creating
> imaginary claims where there are none isn't going to get you
> anywhere except into people's killfiles, and maybe identified
> as an object of ridicule.
Atheists don't claim to killfile me very often. They seem to prefer a
battle of wits. In fact, in my past, I have made friends of some atheists.
> > A challenge is a claim that there is no God.
> >
> > So if an atheist challenges a theist in this way, he has made the
> > claim that his view that there is no God, is in fact correct.
>
> Rubbish. You are headed for a mass plonking. That is all you are
> going to achieve, other than maybe getting nominated for
> the grand atheist award... theist nitwit of the month.
If someone plonks while his side is at a disadvantage, that could work
against his side. I only plonk when someone is being vulgar, otherwise, to
me, plonking is like an ostrich sticking his head into the sand..thinking
that will erase the rhinoceros charging his direction. Not that I see
myself as a rhinoceros...but that I see losing an argument as a rhinoceros.
> I will leave you to create imaginary claims where none exist. You
> need to get on with being plonked by the hundreds and being
> identified as an object of ridicule. With your illogical and
> unreasonable attitude, I dare say you deserve it.
I did not mean to upset you. But I am not a passive theist, as people here
seem to say atheists often are. Whether God exists are not is serious
business to me, because in my view reality cannot continue to function
correctly without knowledge of God.
> Reasonableness is your friend, but you don't seem to realise
> that at all.
I am trying to be reasonable; I am just not being agreeable. I will concede
that the world probably could not function without atheists, because
atheists probably are the ones that make death a serious business in our
lands.
Without atheists, that is, murder would not be so serious, and our morals
would allow suicide, to quicken travel to some spirit world or something.
But I also think that there is a God, whom will incorporate the goodness of
atheists into his reality, without which it could not function.
Jos Flachs
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
Instead of 164 lines, you could have cut the relevant 2 lines, right?
>> Is it "indefensible"?
>> I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
>It is indefensible. There is no way to prove that there is no God.
That is because the burden of proof rests on the positive, never on
the negative statement.
>Atheists have been trying it for thousands of years, and not one of them
>has ever succeeded.
That is because simpletons (you may feel appropriately addressed)
always worship the God hiding in the holes.
Jos Flachs
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>Whether there is a God or not...there is no way to defend the position that
>there is no God.
So you can proof there is a god? Which ones, in particular?
>Let's see you offer some evidence that there is no God.
Sorry, can't proof a negative.
>Let's see you offer some proof, like atheists demand of theists.
Again, sorry. Won't proof a negative.
Jos Flachs
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>> Would you please explain your apparent faux pas. Thank you.
>
>It would do no good unless you tell me that you are an atheist, and that you
>therefore assume that there is no God.
I am an atheist, and would be most happy to believe in any god. Just
convince me.
Nerd Gerl
>On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 00:05:04 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
><mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>
>>Whether there is a God or not...there is no way to defend the
>>there is no God.
>So you can proof there is a god? Which ones, in particular?
>
>>Let's see you offer some evidence that there is no God.
>Sorry, can't proof a negative.
>
>>Let's see you offer some proof, like atheists demand of theists.
>Again, sorry. Won't proof a negative.
Don't waste your time Mark. It's a Stupid Skeptic Trick (and probably
bait for an idiotic conversation).
MG
Nerd Gerl wrote:
> W.Syme wrote in message <8c22972834dd23bd...@news.teranews.com>...
>
>>On 29 Feb 2004 00:43:02 -0800, nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html says:
>>>
>>>snip
>>
>>Weak. While it's true that it cannot be said with absolute certainty
>>that God doesn't exist, it is however reasonable to believe something
>>untrue until the opposite has been proven.
>>
>>While I cannot say with certainty that goblins do not exist, it is
>>reasonable to believe they do not until the opposite is proven. Would
>>you disagree with that?
>
>
> It would be reasonable to accept the possibility that goblins exists.
> Nothing more - nothing less.
>
> By believing goblins do *not* exist - you are *already* using a
> certainty (that you said you couldn't use).
>
> See the contradiction?
I'm puzzled why you seem to think that making a (negative) assertion
somehow involves a certainty? I am not certain that Osama Bin Laden was
responsible for 9/11, but I believe it and would claim it to be true.
Thus (for me, at least) it is not a certainty, yet I believe it to be true.
MG
Jos Flachs
>Still think I'm a troll?
Definitely. And one of our regular trolls too. But which one?
Nerd Gerl
>I'm puzzled why you seem to think that making a (negative) assertion
>somehow involves a certainty?
Is (negative) supposed to mean something?
>I am not certain that Osama Bin Laden was
>responsible for 9/11, but I believe it and would claim it to be true.
Huh - WHY?!?! Do you always believe in and claim things that you
aren't certain about - to be TRUE?!?!?
Ok, are you a Republican? Cuz that might explain a LOT!
TehGhodTrole
> "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
>> How is that logical at all when neither can show any proof?
>
> Because every time I say anything about my reality, that there is a
> God, atheists require proof, without giving any proof of their
> position, that there is no God, at all.
LOL - again, how can anyone question your state of being? Just force
the opponent to show how he's going to validate any answer you
give him. He can't, therefore he's a nitwit. He can't know what's
inside your head or anyone else's. Heck, there's probably argument
he doesn't know what's inside his own head. Smarts and reasonableness.
That's all you need.
Read this: http://tinyurl.com/269op
>>> So it is unfair,
>>> when a theist asserts that God exists, for an atheist to require
>>> proof of that, unless he can provide proof of his own position, too.
>>
>> You have to deal with that using your smarts. You aren't going
>> to get anywhere by doing what they do.
>
> It may get atheists to become agnostics,
If that's what you want to do then you should consider following my posts,
because that's precisely what I do best. The only logical position that any
atheist can take is one that does not vary off the nombril of agnosticism by
even a fraction. All atheist positions are logically invalid and I assert
that as a prima facie accusation against atheism. And in order to make that
stick in the atheist craw, you do not have to make a single statement about
what you believe. Not a single one.
The problem is, alt.atheism atheists who are capable of simple reasoning
are thin on the ground so I never get to have the argument too often because
I deliberately identify then dismiss patently illogical nitwits out of hand.
I've been doing this for more years than I care to remember so I leave the
idiots to remain in their mental torpor. You need to find people who can
think, and you need to be able to think, too.
Mark Richardson is as thick as they come. He has no brain to think with.
Pursuing any argument with him is a lost cause. But you were still misguided
with what you think he said. It's what he actually said that counts.
> To challenge what theism is, belief in God existing, is to say God
> does not exist.
No it is not. It does not get to that stage unless the atheist asserts
that God does not exist. You're on a winner as soon as they say that or
ask for proof. Look:
This is what you get for solid logic: http://tinyurl.com/25rn9
Me: Well, yes, the confirmation is everywhere, but in the Christian is
where God dwells, so the "confirmation" appears to me to be an
inherent component of the experience, not an external one.
Someone: Understood.
Me: But not by the atheist. The athiest persists in his own crazy
conundrum of demanding external evidence.
Force the atheist there and make him stare his absurdity in the face.
How on earth can anyone reasonably ask for evidence of something that
can't be proved either way? They can't do it, their position is absurd.
>> The only correct position that holds any hope is that there's no
>> proof either way.
>
> If that is someone's view, he should be an agnostic.
100% correct.
>> If you stick to that and don't get bogged down
>> in the other person's nitwittery, you can't lose. But creating
>> imaginary claims where there are none isn't going to get you
>> anywhere except into people's killfiles, and maybe identified
>> as an object of ridicule.
>
> Atheists don't claim to killfile me very often. They seem to prefer a
> battle of wits.
What do they fight with then?
> I did not mean to upset you.
You did not upset me. I'm trying to help you here.
[snip]
MG
angelicusrex wrote:
> "W.Syme" <w.syme....@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>Weak. While it's true that it cannot be said with absolute certainty
>>that God doesn't exist, it is however reasonable to believe something
>>untrue until the opposite has been proven.
>
>
> Right, so by that logic the Pope and the Church was right to be in absolute
> denial of Galileo, Darwin, Columbus et al, until they were proven to be
> absolutely correct.
>
> It is never "reasonable" to believe anything to be untrue simply because you
> have no knowledge of it. Though a murderer is innocent until proven guilty
> in this country, it is pretty reasonable to conclude that persons do murder
> one another and that it could be the person charged with the crime and
> arrested so that one can bring it to trial. Why not give God believers the
> same rights? Innocent until you prove they are guilty of fallacious beliefs?
The presumption of innocence is a *special exception* to the fallacy of
arguing from ignorance so one ought not draw such analogies. In other
words, inside a courtroom special rules apply that do not apply to
rational argument elsewhere.
Outside courtrooms it is a fallacy of informal argument to argue that P
is true merely on the grounds of lack of evidence for not P (or,
equivalently, to argue that not P is true, merely on the grounds of a
lack of evidence for P).
>
> or would that mean you would have to do some work, Mr. Prosecutor?
>
>
>>While I cannot say with certainty that goblins do not exist, it is
>>reasonable to believe they do not until the opposite is proven.
>
>
> Why is this reasonable? What is a goblin. How do they exist? What is
> existence? Why might they exist for some and not for others? Why are you
> comparing goblins to God? Isn't that sort of like comparing unicorns to
> human beings? As far as I know in the history of the world the Supreme being
> has never been equated with goblins. Although goblins have been equated with
> angels, aliens and other strange manifestations beyond the ken of men. But I
> suppose by simply not investigating goblins, they will go away, especially
> if you simply stop believing in them.
The comparison is not ontological but rather epistemic (evidential).
Goblins are not like gods ontologically, but the evidence for them may
be on a par - that's the point, I think.
Personally, I do not think it is reasonable to believe that goblins do
not exist *merely* on the basis of a lack of evidence that they do
exist. BUT, I rather doubt that anyone ever actually believes that there
are no goblins merely on such grounds. Speaking for myself, the belief
"Goblins do not exist" is more rational than the belief "Goblins do
exist". What makes it more rational is that it *coheres* much better
with the rest of my beliefs. In other words, In order to believe that
goblins do exist, I'd have to revise far more of my other beliefs. I
suspect that that is true of almost everyone who believes that goblins
don't exist. Clearly, if I'd encountered a goblin (as you testify you
have with God), then my evidence base would be different and a different
belief would be more rational for me.
MG
TehGhodTrole
<to Mark>
Do you see the absurdity? You plainly state there is no logical
way to defend a position that says there is no God, and the
nitwit atheist immediately moves to turn the question around
and demands proof...
>> Whether there is a God or not...there is no way to defend the
>> position that there is no God.
> So you can proof there is a god? Which ones, in particular?
I don't bother with morons like that. There is no point.
MG
angelicusrex wrote:
> Dear Stranger...
>
> The Church KNEW the earth was round and a sphere.
I doubt that. But they may have suspected.
They knew before Columbus
> that the New World could be reached by sea going west.
I doubt that very much since Columbus was trying to reach the Indies
(hence the "West Indies"). So far as I know, there was no clue that the
New World (what became known as the Americas) existed.
They even understood
> there was probably another continent out there. They just wanted CONTROL of
> the situation.
I think your quite mistaken on that.
>
> So it was absolutely unreasonable for them to believe the earth was flat or
> that the sun circled us.
It really depends on the evidence they had available. True, some
evidence was available, but there was strong evidence that it was flat -
it sure *looked* flat. Read Kuhn and Feyerabend, and you'll start to
appreciate that what was rational is not at all as clear cut as you
might think.
People like being unreasonable. It makes them feel
> powerful.
>
You could be right.
MG
TehGhodTrole
> Personally, I do not think it is reasonable to believe that goblins do
> not exist *merely* on the basis of a lack of evidence that they do
> exist. BUT, I rather doubt that anyone ever actually believes that
> there are no goblins merely on such grounds. Speaking for myself, the
> belief "Goblins do not exist" is more rational than the belief
> "Goblins do exist". What makes it more rational is that it *coheres*
> much better with the rest of my beliefs. In other words, In order to
> believe that goblins do exist, I'd have to revise far more of my
> other beliefs. I suspect that that is true of almost everyone who
> believes that goblins don't exist. Clearly, if I'd encountered a
> goblin (as you testify you have with God), then my evidence base
> would be different and a different belief would be more rational for
> me.
How enlightening, but you miss a few essential points.
First of all you only touch on the question of rational belief. You
may need to dig deeper down there.
Secondly, there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows a belief
in a deity as being an irrational belief.
Thirdly, it is irrational to assert that since you have not seen
evidence of a certain goblin, which you clearly equated with God,
that the goblin in question necessarily does not exsit. To assert
such a thing is to deny the reality of unprovable truths.
You need to revise your beliefs, whether you like it or not.
Jos Flachs
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>Because every time I say anything about my reality, that there is a God,
>atheists require proof, without giving any proof of their position, that
>there is no God, at all.
Me: "There really is a giant whale swimming on Jupiter."
You: Can you proof that?
Me: Can you proof me wrong? Have you ever been to Jupiter, huh?
See the resemblance?
Christopher A. Lee
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>Because every time I say anything about my reality, that there is a God,
>atheists require proof, without giving any proof of their position, that
>there is no God, at all.
What "position that there is no God"?
When are you finally going to realise that "there's no God" is no
different whatsoever than "there's no Santa Claus"?
It's hardly rocket science, but your religious beliefs are irrelevant
to us. The world doesn't revolve around them.
>> > So it is unfair,
>> > when a theist asserts that God exists, for an atheist to require
>> > proof of that, unless he can provide proof of his own position, too.
You imagine that because you still haven't grasped what our position
actually is, nor do you grasp that the only reason people demand proof
from you is to get you to either put up or shut up.
But like the bleater you are, you do neither.
>> You have to deal with that using your smarts. You aren't going
>> to get anywhere by doing what they do.
>
>It may get atheists to become agnostics, realizing there is no solid proof
>that there is no God. If one has no proof, one does not know. And the
>illusion of truth is the greatest enemy to ignorance.
Why the fuck should we care about the irrelevant object of somebody
else's religious beliefs?
Robibnikoff
snip
>
>Everyone knows that to be an atheist means to say in your heart, "there is
>no God." It is obvious. At least be adult enough to admit what you stand
>for.
Wrong. There's merely your personal opinion.
snip
>
>My knowledge of God has nothing to do with fear. I was persuaded by men
>whom merely showed me where to find life, and then demonstrated that life to
>me. As well as irrefutable logic.
Logic?!? LOL!
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Brian Bilek
wrote:
>Brian Bilek wrote:
>> On 1 Mar 2004 05:28:40 GMT, "TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net>
>> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>> I hold a lack of belief in any [of the] gods
>
>Let's boil that down to this...
>
>"I hold a lack of belief in any gods".
>
>To me that looks notionally the same as what you first stated.
>Please say so if you disagree.
I would agree, that looks acceptable based on what I first stated.
>
>The word hold implies a number of possibilities:
Of the following, I choose:
<snip>
>3. To have or possess, either in a concrete or an
> abstract sense
>
>There are other possibilities, but I've chosen what I
>think are the most appropriate meanings for the word
>in context. Would you please detail what you actually
>mean by the word hold in the context of the statement
>"I hold a lack of belief in any gods".
Very well. My statement was intented to convey the notion that many
people have made claims for the existence of a metaphysical figure X
(i.e. god, or gods). I do not recognize any of those claims as valid.
By "hold" I mean the possession of an abstract notion. That notion
being acknowledgement that anyone's claim of god is true.
So, perhaps more accurately, the statement should read:
"I do not hold acknowledgement for any claim that god exists."
For this, I substitute "I hold a lack of belief in gods" because it is
less tiresome to type on a daily basis, and in general less difficult
for others to understand given some widely held misconceptions about
atheism. The above, however, is more accurate than the widely
accepted view. It also more accurately sets me apart from the
"strong" atheists of the world.
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:c1uga9$f...@library1.airnews.net...
>
> "Stranger" <ath...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:4042bfae$0$565$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >
> > "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:c1ud5s$4...@library2.airnews.net...
> > >
> > > "Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
> > > > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:34:29 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
> > > > <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
> > > >
<snip>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You can be an atheist - be a godless person - not have a god -
> > > > >> irrespective of saying or claiming or arguing anything.
> > > > >> It's not saying "God does not exist" that makes one an atheist.
> > > > >> It is not believing in a god that makes one an atheist.
> > > > >
> > > > >Double talk. Saying God does not exist means the same thing as not
> > > > >believing in a God.
> > > > >
> > > > So?
> > > > I never claimed it did.
> > >
> > > You just did. You claim to be an atheist, right? And you just said
> that
> > > atheism does not assume that there is no God. That is a bunch of
> baloney.
> > > Atheism means belief that there is no God, and that is the category
that
> > > those that say in their hearts "there is no God" fall into.
> > >
> > > It is an indefensible position. But that is the position you fall
into.
Is "There is no Shiva" equally indefensible?
> > > Admit it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > There is weak Atheism and strong Atheism, doesnt make things more easy
> > ofcourse.
> >
> > You really shouldnt see Atheists as they are written about in your
bible,
> > when a Atheist say's "believe" he is not asserting to a bible at all,
let
> > alone that we say in our hearts "there is no god" as it maybe written
> there.
> > We think with our heads and we do not have special feelings towards a
god
> of> any kind when we say anything.
>
> Everyone knows that to be an atheist means to say in your heart, "there is
> no God." It is obvious. At least be adult enough to admit what you stand
> for.
The word 'atheist' has some semantic play.
There is variability in the views of the various
people who call themselves atheist.
For example there are strong and weak atheists.
Weak atheist reasoning is something like, "There
isn't enough evidence to believe in a god."
Strong atheist reasoning is something like, "There
is enough evidence to believe there are no gods."
>
> >
> > I understand that religious people are talked into feeling something
> special
> > when there god is mentioned, this usually gets indoctrinated from
> childhood
> > and is in fact very sad, it is used to keep the church in power, it is a
> > psychological trick they thought up in the past as a propaganda/warfare
> > machine to lead there tribes and keep themselfs into power.
> > They have used this pretty much on all fragile things of the mind, like
> > love - the good god idea, the feeling of being spyed on, a hunting
> > instinct - God(tm) see's all, fear of death - after life, fear of being
> lied
> > to - the god (tm) knows and punishes, fear of the other group of
people -
> > hate, the unknown - god(tm) knows all. It is very sad that alot of
people
> > are stuck into this fear system which was cleverly made to do just that,
> > leaders leading people under false pretences.
>
> My knowledge of God has nothing to do with fear. I was persuaded by men
> whom merely showed me where to find life, and then demonstrated that life
to
> me. As well as irrefutable logic.
I'd like to hear some of that irrefutable logic.
--
Ron Baker
angelicusrex
"MG" <philos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> The presumption of innocence is a *special exception* to the fallacy of
> arguing from ignorance so one ought not draw such analogies.
Presumption of innocent or guilt are absolutely applicable to this "Kangaroo
court" that the atheists on alt.atheism have devised. It really is up to you
to prove beyond a doubt that another person's belief in, relationship to or
with, or evidence of God is fallacious in every case. If you cannot then
logically you must assume that there would be a case somewhere that might
indeed have evidence for God's existence. In otherwords, you cannot toss out
every argument every theist gives you with some sort of prejudicial
judgment.
"I do not believe in God" is your right.
"I don't believe in God and everyone who does is a crazy motherloving
asshole!" Is prejudicial.
The reason our courts recognize the "special exception" of innocent until
proven guilty is because it does not want prejudices to enter the case, even
though they sometimes do, they can be seen for what they are.
I see Atheist's prejudices for what they are. We cannot really, any of us,
have a truly logical argument on the subject of God. It is a "hot button
topic" to which people's emotions are tied so strongly they cannot be
untied. Sort of like trying to try O.J. Simpson in Alabama. he would not
have gotten a fair trial. There are too many racial prejudices against
Blacks there. As it turned out we found ot there were as many in L.A. The
Law understands that as long as there remains prejudice, there can be no
true fairness or justice.
I find the constant harangues of atheists who constantly insist that others
show how God exists "empirically" to be facetious and prejudicial. Why?
Because they know the concept of God goes beyond anyone's ability to define
and/or explain and/or prove. So they use this method to make the believer
look ridiculous. Sort of like saying a hooker can't bear testimony for an
auto accident because she is an immoral person. If we kept doing this,there
would be no one left to witness or testify to anything. Because every human
has failings. because a human fails to convince another human of the
empirical existence of God does not de facto preclude God's existence.
You can believe God exists. Or, you can believe God does not exist. But
neither party can prove their beliefs. Beliefs are NOT assertions. They are
deeply held opinions based usually on personal, absolutely subjective
experience. So this argument the atheists have against God's existence
simply because no one they talk to can "prove it" to them, is a fallacious
argument. In fact, it's really just discord and upset in the guise of an
argument no one will ever win.
> The comparison is not ontological but rather epistemic (evidential).
> Goblins are not like gods ontologically, but the evidence for them may
> be on a par - that's the point, I think.
The reason people use Goblins and unicorns in the same context as God is
because they believe that goblins and unicorns, fairies and Easter Bunnies
are in fact, non-existent. Because there is no evidence for them. However
there is evidence for them. They exist in one form or another, whether they
are living beings or not is moot. God itself may be a concept. But the
concept exists. You know it, I know it...unless you've been living in a cave
for your whole life, you've heard about God and all the general aspects of
God, which often include, invisibility, immateriality, an ineffable
presonality or being which cannot be fathomed by Mankind's mind. All these
ideas already make God outside the realm of "logic" and well outside
discovery of God by technical or mechanical means. We posit that there is
more to biological function than eating, sleeping reproducing and
defecating. We posit that in the human body, the parts add up to MORE than
the whole. Otherwise we would not be writing to one another. We would be
having babies and protecting them so we can pass our genes on and that would
be ALL we do. All this would be moot. But we do it. People have a belief in
goblins, elves, gnomes, sprites, fairies, etc, etc. They are even often
defined by laws, protected by laws and held up as legally defined and
accepted beings. (They protect Fairy Trees in England, as an example.) In
some cultures Djinn and Angels are more real than you or I are considered to
be. Therefore to say the "do not exist" is wrong. They do exist. Culturally,
sometimes even legally and in the minds and hearts of men and women.
Therefore when we visit other cultures we respect their taboos regarding
these supposedly "nonexistent" beings.
Face it, what you are promoting is that Science has somehow "proven" that
goblins don't exist. Therefore no one should ever believe in them again. it
is the tyranny of science that places its own crown of absolute knowledge
upon its own head and empowers itself to make others bow down to it. This is
no different than what Religion did previously. Science has never proven
goblins do not exist. And neither has it proven, nor is it seeking to prove,
that God doesn't exist.
>
> Personally, I do not think it is reasonable to believe that goblins do
> not exist *merely* on the basis of a lack of evidence that they do
> exist. BUT, I rather doubt that anyone ever actually believes that there
> are no goblins merely on such grounds. Speaking for myself, the belief
> "Goblins do not exist" is more rational than the belief "Goblins do
> exist".
This is only because the culture you come from allows that Science is your
supreme arbitrator in these matters. Other cultures know that sicience is
fallible. And that goblins often play havok with people's lives. They don't
simply "believe it." They KNOW it. To go there and tell them they are being
unreasonable is rude and incorrect behavior. It is always rude and incorrect
behavior to laugh at people's personal faiths and beliefs in the Unknown.
The correct way to approach preaching Christians is: "Thank you, however I
do not share those beliefs. I have previously heard about them and
understand them. However, again, I cannot believe in them. So thank you and
good bye."
Not, "Get away from me you miserable fantasy believing wretch! Your God
sucks! He doesn't even exist! You can't even prove God exists! So blow it
out your rear end! Moron!"
> What makes it more rational is that it *coheres* much better
> with the rest of my beliefs. In other words, In order to believe that
> goblins do exist, I'd have to revise far more of my other beliefs.
So this is how you have ordered and organized your reality. Fine. No one is
telling you to believe in Goblins. What I am telling you is that an open
mind is better than one whichis prejudicially closed off. Your way is not
how everyone else orders and organizes their realities however. In fact,
your way is in the minority of ways. So I, as a believer, simply say, Thank
you for sharing your disbeliefs. I have already encountered and experienced
many things in this life I cannot truly explain and have previously put my
trust in my belief in God. I believe God aids me every day and I have no
argument with anyone who cannot believe me. I have no "proofs" to offer you,
no evidence except this: I am here, and if it wasn't for my relationship
with God, I would not be here. If you want to hear my story, fine. If not,
fine. However I don't need to garner anymore disrespect in this life as I
find it toxic to my ability to keep my self esteem intact. So tahnks for
your disbelief. But please keep it.
> I > suspect that that is true of almost everyone who believes that goblins
> don't exist. Clearly, if I'd encountered a goblin (as you testify you
> have with God), then my evidence base would be different and a different
> belief would be more rational for me.
>
> MG
God is a lot easier to find than a goblin. There are very few goblins in the
U.S. however God is everywhere.
happy hunting.
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
angelicusrex
"MG" <philos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1v0ur$bke$1...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>
>
> angelicusrex wrote:
>
> > Dear Stranger...
> >
> > The Church KNEW the earth was round and a sphere.
>
> I doubt that. But they may have suspected.
Oh, well if we are going to have a historical argument, I can prove the
Church Fathers knew the world was a sphere. Aristotle had proved it
thousands of years previously with a simple experiment, which, anyone who
could read, had read about. The Church protected this knowledge from common
people. Which is why they could read and write and no one else could unless
taught by the Church. They simply did not know exactly how large of a sphere
it was (Columbus' calculations were off by thousands of miles...and a
continent and another ocean...) or whether ships could sail that far without
never being seen again. It was old wives and coastal sailors who believed in
"the edge of the world." Which was nothing more than a simile for "I'm
terrified to go too far."
>
> They knew before Columbus
> > that the New World could be reached by sea going west.
>
> I doubt that very much since Columbus was trying to reach the Indies
> (hence the "West Indies"). So far as I know, there was no clue that the
> New World (what became known as the Americas) existed.
They were only called the West Indies after he and everyone else found out
years later that he had not even come close to the East Indies. To them the
whole Eastern Coast of Asia was a New World, which had never been seen by
Christians. It was barely reported of by Muslims and other traders. However
there were already hints about this "New World" long before Columbus. The
Vikings had already lived in it. So had Portoguese Cod Fishermen, and
English Cod Fishermen had also camped along America's Coast and they new it
was NOT Asia. There's a lot of good literature now on the subject.
> They even understood
> > there was probably another continent out there. They just wanted CONTROL
of
> > the situation.
>
> I think your quite mistaken on that.
Prove it. My research indicates the Church was in possession of extensive
knowledge of the New World, the shape of the earth, the movement of the
stars and what they truly were. They kept people ignorant for the very
reasons which finally destroyed them later. We saw that when people got
smart, the Church collapsed into sizeable new chunks. They lost all their
power. And this is exactly what they were afraid of.
But how can you, an atheist, defend the Catholic Church?
> > So it was absolutely unreasonable for them to believe the earth was flat
or
> > that the sun circled us.
>
> It really depends on the evidence they had available. True, some
> evidence was available, but there was strong evidence that it was flat -
> it sure *looked* flat. Read Kuhn and Feyerabend, and you'll start to
> appreciate that what was rational is not at all as clear cut as you
> might think.
Look, your pal said it is unreasonable to believe in something for which
there is no evidence. That first of all is ignorant as a statement. Second
of all there WAS evidence but the Church would not allow it to be
distributed or looked at by others. Columbus and Galileo et al had to be
EXTREMELY secretive. Columbus had maps, possibly Muslim and Portuguese in
origin which could have gotten him burned at that stake or jailed for
treason. Galileo was just foullowing Aristotle and other Greek
mathematicians leads. And it nearly got him burned alive. So your atheist
pal, in trying to prove that belief in God is unreasonable, basically just
testified that the Church was correct in finding Columbus and a Galileo's
findings unreasonable! He just defended the major root cause of his
disatisfaction with the Christians! That's like feeding a cancer! But hell,
if you guys have to disbelieve in God so hard that it makes the Catholics
look good, have at it!
> People like being unreasonable. It makes them feel
> > powerful.
> >
>
> You could be right.
In this case I am right. And I hate to be right.
Mark Richardson
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>
>"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
>news:2lh5401ig1qebp834...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:55:55 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
>> <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
>> >news:due5405ol3ggf7fc3...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:12:13 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
>> >> <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
>> >> >news:28d5401k0raph7c97...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:34:29 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
>> >> >> <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in
>message
<snip>
>> >> >> >> You can be an atheist - be a godless person - not have a god -
>> >> >> >> irrespective of saying or claiming or arguing anything.
>> >> >> >> It's not saying "God does not exist" that makes one an atheist.
>> >> >> >> It is not believing in a god that makes one an atheist.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Double talk. Saying God does not exist means the same thing as not
>> >> >> >believing in a God.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> So?
>> >> >> I never claimed it did.
>> >> >
>> >> >You just did.
>> >> Nope. Never happened.
>> >>
>> >> > You claim to be an atheist, right?
>> >> I am godless - an unbeliever - without a god - a -theos - yes to all.
>> >>
>> >> > And you just said that
>> >> >atheism does not assume that there is no God.
>> >> No I didnt.
>> >>
>> >> > That is a bunch of baloney.
>> >> Then don't say it!
>> >>
>> >> >Atheism means belief that there is no God,
>> >> That is one meaning - not the most general.
>> >> Check out a dictionary or two.
>> >>
>> >> > and that is the category that
>> >> >those that say in their hearts "there is no God" fall into.
>> >> >
>> >> Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
>> >> Calling people who don't believe as you do "fools" is taking an easy
>> >> shot.
>> >>
>> >> >It is an indefensible position. But that is the position you fall
>into.
>> >> >Admit it.
>> >> I admit I am Godless, an unbeliever, an infidel.
>> >> I admit I don't recognize (the existence or holiness of) God or his
>> >> Son. I admit I do not love God, I do not fear God, I do not wish to be
>> >> with God, I do not look to God for guidence or morality ...
>> >> I admit I am very content to be Godless - an unbeliever - an infidel.
>> >>
>> >> Do I sound atheist "enough" fo you?
>> >
>> >No it doesn't. You haven't admityed to what you assume...that there is
>no
>> >God. Because you know that what you assume is indefensible.
>>
>> OK If it gets you off.
>> I admit that I assume that God does not exist.
>> (Note: this doesnt say anything about atheism in General)
>>
>> Is it "indefensible"?
>> I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
>
>It is indefensible.
You didnt respond to what I said - does it *need* defending?
Why?
> There is no way to prove that there is no God.
So what?
You dont believe in things simply because you (or someone else on the
internet) can't prove they don't exist.
You believe in things because you have a reason to do so - not because
you cant think of a reason NOT to believe in them.
Nobody works like that - why should you demand atheists alone behave
in this bizzare fashion?
It doesn't make any sense.
>Atheists have been trying it for thousands of years, and not one of them
>has ever succeeded.
>
I don't believe they *have* been trying.
I know for certain that the believers have been trying to prove Gods
existence for thousands of years and have failed.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>
>"TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
>news:gQQVOGRfccko2B56BCEC...@kadaitcha.cx...
>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>> > "Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
>>
>> >> I admit that I assume that God does not exist.
>> >> (Note: this doesnt say anything about atheism in General)
>> >>
>> >> Is it "indefensible"?
>> >> I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
>> >
>> > It is indefensible. There is no way to prove that there is no God.
>> > Atheists have been trying it for thousands of years, and not one of
>> > them has ever succeeded.
>>
>> Hang on. That's not right at all. Look:
>>
>> I grant that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of
>> God. That gets that problem out of the way.
>>
>> Now, how does it logically follow then that is unreasonable to
>> "assume that God does not exist"?
>
>Because that is what I always hear atheists claim about theists doing: of
>assuming something without proof. How can an atheist say it is not O.K. for
>a theist to assume without proof, when he himself does that very thing?
>
I am not every atheist - I am me.
I don't demand evidence of God from believers.
I don't see any point.
I sometimes ask "why do you believe?" because that is an interest of
mine - what people believe and why they believe ( or why they *think*
they believe - how they rationalize their own beliefs to themselves) -
but that is not the same thing as asking for proof.
Billy Goat
> "Stranger" <ath...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:4042bfae$0$565$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >
> > "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:c1ud5s$4...@library2.airnews.net...
> > >
> that
> > > atheism does not assume that there is no God. That is a bunch of
> baloney.
> > > Atheism means belief that there is no God, and that is the category that
> > > those that say in their hearts "there is no God" fall into.
Wrong. You don't have to believe "there is no God" in order to
disbelieve that "there is God".
Do newborn babies believe in God? No.
Do newborn babies say in their hearts, "there is no God"? No.
Newborn babies are clearly not theists. If they're not atheists, what
are they?
> > > It is an indefensible position. But that is the position you fall into.
> > > Admit it.
You know, it's funny. If you were having a conversation with someone
who claimed to be a Christian, and during the course of the
conversation he told you he didn't believe in Jesus, you'd probably
tell him he shouldn't be calling himself Christian. He has labelled
himself incorrectly.
But if someone who calls himself an atheist reveals that he doesn't
have the beliefs atheists are "supposed to" have, do you tell him he
shouldn't be calling himself atheist? No! You continue to accept that
he's an atheist, but you tell him he's lying about his beliefs.
This is why Christians are so unsuccessful at converting people: half
the time, they're trying to change beliefs people don't actually have.
And when they fail, they're forced to conclude that non-Christians are
being stubborn, since Christians can't admit that they can be wrong
about how non-Christians think.
Instead of assuming that we're lying, isn't it possible that one of us
is mistaken about what an atheist is? Why not try dealing with the
beliefs we actually have, instead of the ones you think we're
"supposed to" have?
> > There is weak Atheism and strong Atheism, doesnt make things more easy
> > ofcourse.
> >
> > You really shouldnt see Atheists as they are written about in your bible,
> > when a Atheist say's "believe" he is not asserting to a bible at all, let
> > alone that we say in our hearts "there is no god" as it maybe written
> there.
> > We think with our heads and we do not have special feelings towards a god
> of> any kind when we say anything.
>
> Everyone knows that to be an atheist means to say in your heart, "there is
> no God." It is obvious. At least be adult enough to admit what you stand
> for.
It is also obvious that the Earth is flat.
> > I understand that religious people are talked into feeling something
> special
> > when there god is mentioned, this usually gets indoctrinated from
> childhood
> > and is in fact very sad, it is used to keep the church in power, it is a
> > psychological trick they thought up in the past as a propaganda/warfare
> > machine to lead there tribes and keep themselfs into power.
> > They have used this pretty much on all fragile things of the mind, like
> > love - the good god idea, the feeling of being spyed on, a hunting
> > instinct - God(tm) see's all, fear of death - after life, fear of being
> lied
> > to - the god (tm) knows and punishes, fear of the other group of people -
> > hate, the unknown - god(tm) knows all. It is very sad that alot of people
> > are stuck into this fear system which was cleverly made to do just that,
> > leaders leading people under false pretences.
>
> My knowledge of God has nothing to do with fear. I was persuaded by men
> whom merely showed me where to find life, and then demonstrated that life to
> me. As well as irrefutable logic.
You claim to believe in God, right? And you just said that it has
nothing to do with fear. That is a bunch of baloney. Everyone knows
that belief in God is based on fear. It is obvious. At least be
adult enough to admit what you stand for.
--Billy
Nerd Gerl
If you scroll this down and scan it really fast, it looks like
"Yes I do"
"No you don't"
"Yes I don't"
"No you do"
"So"
"So there"
.... i win %
--
"Behind every great man, is a woman telling him what to think."
Mark Richardson wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 00:03:29 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
><mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
>>news:2lh5401ig1qebp834...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:55:55 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
>>> <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
>>> >news:due5405ol3ggf7fc3...@4ax.com...
>>> >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:12:13 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
>>> >> <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:28d5401k0raph7c97...@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:34:29 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
>>> >> >> <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in
>>message
><snip>
>>> >> >> >> You can be an atheist - be a godless person - not have a god -
>>> >> >> >> irrespective of saying or claiming or arguing anything.
>>> >> >> >> It's not saying "God does not exist" that makes one an atheist.
>>> >> >> >> It is not believing in a god that makes one an atheist.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Double talk. Saying God does not exist means the same thing as not
>>> >> >> >believing in a God.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> So?
>>> >> >> I never claimed it did.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >You just did.
>>> >> Nope. Never happened.
>>> >>
>>> >> > You claim to be an atheist, right?
>>> >> I am godless - an unbeliever - without a god - a -theos - yes to all.
>>> >>
>>> >> > And you just said that
>>> >> >atheism does not assume that there is no God.
>>> >> No I didnt.
>>> >>
>>> >> > That is a bunch of baloney.
>>> >> Then don't say it!
>>> >>
>>> >> >Atheism means belief that there is no God,
>>> >> That is one meaning - not the most general.
>>> >> Check out a dictionary or two.
>>> >>
>>> >> > and that is the category that
>>> >> >those that say in their hearts "there is no God" fall into.
>>> >> >
>>> >> Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
>>> >> Calling people who don't believe as you do "fools" is taking an easy
>>> >> shot.
>>> >>
>>> >> >It is an indefensible position. But that is the position you fall
>>into.
>>> >> >Admit it.
>>> >> I admit I am Godless, an unbeliever, an infidel.
>>> >> I admit I don't recognize (the existence or holiness of) God or his
>>> >> Son. I admit I do not love God, I do not fear God, I do not wish to be
>>> >> with God, I do not look to God for guidence or morality ...
>>> >> I admit I am very content to be Godless - an unbeliever - an infidel.
>>> >>
>>> >> Do I sound atheist "enough" fo you?
>>> >
>>> >No it doesn't. You haven't admityed to what you assume...that there is
>>no
>>> >God. Because you know that what you assume is indefensible.
>>>
>>> OK If it gets you off.
>>> I admit that I assume that God does not exist.
>>> (Note: this doesnt say anything about atheism in General)
>>>
>>> Is it "indefensible"?
>>> I am not so ceratin that it needs defending.
>>
>>It is indefensible.
>You didnt respond to what I said - does it *need* defending?
>Why?
>
>> There is no way to prove that there is no God.
>So what?
>You dont believe in things simply because you (or someone else on the
>internet) can't prove they don't exist.
>You believe in things because you have a reason to do so - not because
>you cant think of a reason NOT to believe in them.
>Nobody works like that - why should you demand atheists alone behave
>in this bizzare fashion?
>It doesn't make any sense.
>
>>Atheists have been trying it for thousands of years, and not one of them
>>has ever succeeded.
>>
>I don't believe they *have* been trying.
>I know for certain that the believers have been trying to prove Gods
>existence for thousands of years and have failed.
>
Ted King
"TehGhodTrole" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
****Warning**** Gratuitous remark to follow:
This is going to be good.
Ted
Mike Smith
=Oh, yes, I told a another porky about the plonk.
IOW, "I'm a liar".
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction shall drive it far
from him." - Pr:22:15
MG
TehGhodTrole wrote:
> MG wrote:
>
>
>>Personally, I do not think it is reasonable to believe that goblins do
>>not exist *merely* on the basis of a lack of evidence that they do
>>exist. BUT, I rather doubt that anyone ever actually believes that
>>there are no goblins merely on such grounds. Speaking for myself, the
>>belief "Goblins do not exist" is more rational than the belief
>>"Goblins do exist". What makes it more rational is that it *coheres*
>>much better with the rest of my beliefs. In other words, In order to
>>believe that goblins do exist, I'd have to revise far more of my
>>other beliefs. I suspect that that is true of almost everyone who
>>believes that goblins don't exist. Clearly, if I'd encountered a
>>goblin (as you testify you have with God), then my evidence base
>>would be different and a different belief would be more rational for
>>me.
>
>
> How enlightening, but you miss a few essential points.
>
> First of all you only touch on the question of rational belief. You
> may need to dig deeper down there.
Down where? What am I supposed to be digging for? Do you mean "the truth"?
>
> Secondly, there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows a belief
> in a deity as being an irrational belief.
I never said that it was irrational. :) I simply said that the evidence
that *I* have renders belief in the non-existence of god more rational
than the belief that there is a god. If you have other evidence (such as
one-on-one personal contact with a divine being) that I don't have, then
it may be entirely rational for you to adopt a different belief.
But to make things a little clearer - what I mean by "rational" is
essentially relative to a set of *beliefs*. For example, if you believe
1) that all oranges are poisonous to humans, and
2) that the green object in front of you is an orange,
then it is rational for you to believe
3) that the green object in front of you is poisonous to humans.
If you draw the conclusion that the green object in front of you is not
poisonous to humans, you are being quite irrational (irrepsective of it
being, say, a non-poisonous apple).
As you can see, rationality as I am using the term has nothing to do
with whether what you believe is *true*. It is to do with whether a
given belief follows from (or, more generally, maximally coheres with)
your other beliefs.
Now, some of our beliefs derive from evidence. Hence there is a
relationship between rationality and evidence, but it is always via a
belief concerning the evidence. For example, suppose you observe someone
eating the said green object with no apparent ill affects. What is it
rational to believe? Well, it again depends on what you believe. For
example, do you believe that the person who ate the said green object
was a human, or do you believe, perhaps, that it was an android? If you
think that they are human then it would be irrational of you to cling to
both (1) and (2). If you believe that the person was an android, then,
in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, it is perfectly
rational for you to continue to believe both (1) and (2).
>
> Thirdly, it is irrational to assert that since you have not seen
> evidence of a certain goblin, which you clearly equated with God,
I do not and have not equated the concept of a "god" with the concept of
a "goblin".
> that the goblin in question necessarily does not exsit.
Nowhere do I say or imply that it is *necessary* that goblins do not
exist. I happen to believe that goblins don't exist, but nowhere do I
say or imply that it is *necessarily the case* that goblins do not
exist. Neither do I infer that the evidence demonstrates that goblins
necessarily do not exist. Necessity played no role in my reasoning about
the existence or otherwise of goblins.
If you mean something other than logical necessity by the term
"necessary", then spell that out. Unless specified otherwise, I mean by
"necessary" logically necessary. I.e., true in all possible worlds.
To assert
> such a thing is to deny the reality of unprovable truths.
Au contrare - I am sure that that there are unprovable propositions that
are true.
>
> You need to revise your beliefs, whether you like it or not.
>
Which beliefs? And why do you think I need to revise them?
MG
Mark Earnest
O.K. Consider what atheists seem to think: that something has to be seen to
be real. Now, go look for a visible being that is almighty, all good, and
omniscient. Now talk to him. You will feel him creating you as you speak
to him (or her, as the case may be.) If that happens, the existence of God
may be revealed to you.
MG
angelicusrex wrote:
> "MG" <philos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>The presumption of innocence is a *special exception* to the fallacy of
>>arguing from ignorance so one ought not draw such analogies.
>
>
> Presumption of innocent or guilt are absolutely applicable to this "Kangaroo
> court" that the atheists on alt.atheism have devised.
This is not a court, kangaroo or othewise. Some people here treat it as
a court, but they are wrong to do so. I am not responsible for the
actions or attitudes of others on this newsgroup, however misguided they
may be.
It really is up to you
> to prove beyond a doubt that another person's belief in, relationship to or
> with, or evidence of God is fallacious in every case.
Why? Given that I am not out to prove theists wrong.
If you cannot then
> logically you must assume that there would be a case somewhere that might
> indeed have evidence for God's existence.
I take it that there *could* be such a case.
In otherwords, you cannot toss out
> every argument every theist gives you with some sort of prejudicial
> judgment.
I don't. I'm just pointing out that the presumption of innocence does
not apply outside of a courtroom. I'm pointing out that it is a fallacy
to argue that some claim is false (or true) merely on the basis that
there is no evidence that it is true (or false).
>
> "I do not believe in God" is your right.
>
> "I don't believe in God and everyone who does is a crazy motherloving
> asshole!" Is prejudicial.
That would be rude and disrespectful, of course, but I'm not clear why
you think it prejudges the issue of the existence of god. In any case, I
never said that.
>
> The reason our courts recognize the "special exception" of innocent until
> proven guilty is because it does not want prejudices to enter the case, even
> though they sometimes do, they can be seen for what they are.
The reason for the presumption of innocence is beside my point: the
standards or argument in a courtroom are a special case - arguing from
ignorance (its true because there is no evidence that it is false, or,
it is false because there is no evidence that it is true) is a fallacy
in all other cases.
>
> I see Atheist's prejudices for what they are.
Many atheists are prejudiced. Many theists are prejudiced. I hope you
can see both for what they are.
We cannot really, any of us,
> have a truly logical argument on the subject of God. It is a "hot button
> topic" to which people's emotions are tied so strongly they cannot be
> untied. Sort of like trying to try O.J. Simpson in Alabama. he would not
> have gotten a fair trial. There are too many racial prejudices against
> Blacks there. As it turned out we found ot there were as many in L.A. The
> Law understands that as long as there remains prejudice, there can be no
> true fairness or justice.
Let me assure that, on the whole, I like theists. Many of the people I
care most deeply about are theists. I respect their beliefs very much.
>
> I find the constant harangues of atheists who constantly insist that others
> show how God exists "empirically" to be facetious and prejudicial.
Again, I cannot speak for others, but I am interested in why people
believe the things that they do. And so I often ask them for their
reasons. I hope you are not offended by that.
[snip]
because a human fails to convince another human of the
> empirical existence of God does not de facto preclude God's existence.
I couldn't agree more.
>
> You can believe God exists. Or, you can believe God does not exist. But
> neither party can prove their beliefs.
Members of both sides can and often do offer reasons.
Beliefs are NOT assertions.
Correct. One can have a belief without asserting it, and one can assert
something wihtout believing it (an insincere assertion).
They are
> deeply held opinions based usually on personal, absolutely subjective
> experience.
That depends on what you mean by "subjective". Is, for example, the
interpretation of the fossil record as an indication of the appearance
and disappearanec of species over time a "subjective" matter? Is my
belief that I was born in London a subjective matter?
So this argument the atheists have against God's existence
> simply because no one they talk to can "prove it" to them, is a fallacious
> argument. In fact, it's really just discord and upset in the guise of an
> argument no one will ever win.
Not all atheists are arguing against the existence of god. But were
anyone to conclude that god does not exist merely on the basis of the
lack of evidence for the existence of god, they would be commiting a
logical fallacy. (argumentum ad ignorantium - arguing from ignorance)
>
>
>>The comparison is not ontological but rather epistemic (evidential).
>>Goblins are not like gods ontologically, but the evidence for them may
>>be on a par - that's the point, I think.
>
>
> The reason people use Goblins and unicorns in the same context as God is
> because they believe that goblins and unicorns, fairies and Easter Bunnies
> are in fact, non-existent.
Not always - some talk about "aliens" in precisely the same way not
because they think that there are none, but because they think that
there is no evidence for them. Whether they believe that there are
goblins or not is completely irrelevent to whether the case for gods is
any better than the case for goblins.
Because there is no evidence for them. However
> there is evidence for them. They exist in one form or another, whether they
> are living beings or not is moot. God itself may be a concept. But the
> concept exists.
I agree that the concept exists. That's true and obvious. But the issue
is whether that concept is instantiated. The claim "god exists" is the
claim that something instantiates that concept. It is not the claim
"there is a concept of 'god'".
You know it, I know it...unless you've been living in a cave
> for your whole life, you've heard about God and all the general aspects of
> God, which often include, invisibility, immateriality, an ineffable
> presonality or being which cannot be fathomed by Mankind's mind.
I know there is such a concept of "god", and I've heard many different
versions of what the other characteristics of an object instatiating
that concept are supposed to be.
All these
> ideas already make God outside the realm of "logic" and well outside
> discovery of God by technical or mechanical means.
No - they do not place the *concept* outside the realm of logic. Notice
that you suddenly shift from talking about the *concept* of god, which
more or less everyone here will have encountered, to talking about the
instantiation of the concept, which many here deny exists. Whether the
instatiation of the concept of "god" is outside the possibility of
discovery by technical or mechanical means is an interesting question.
Many think so.
We posit that there is
> more to biological function than eating, sleeping reproducing and
> defecating.
By "we" you mean you speak on behalf of all theists?
We posit that in the human body, the parts add up to MORE than
> the whole.
I wouldn't disagree with that. Indeed, I take it to be trivially true of
any complex object, but to explain why would take us elsewhere.
Otherwise we would not be writing to one another.
Errr - no that doesn't follow. There may be many reasons to communicate.
We would be
> having babies and protecting them so we can pass our genes on and that would
> be ALL we do.
That's not all we do. At least, it's not all that I do. And again, it
doesn't follow from your premise (that the sum of the human body add up
to more than the parts).
All this would be moot. But we do it. People have a belief in
> goblins, elves, gnomes, sprites, fairies, etc, etc. They are even often
> defined by laws, protected by laws and held up as legally defined and
> accepted beings. (They protect Fairy Trees in England, as an example.)
How interesting.
In
> some cultures Djinn and Angels are more real than you or I are considered to
> be.
Be careful - it is that they are *considered to be* more real. That's
very different from saying that they *are* more real.
Therefore to say the "do not exist" is wrong. They do exist.
Again - you're mixing up the concept with the instantiation of the
concept. People believing that there are angels (and having a concept of
an angel) does not mean that there are angels. The concepts exists, and
the belief that they are instantiated exists. Of that there is no doubt.
But that does not establish (or mean that same thing as) that angels exist.
Culturally,
> sometimes even legally and in the minds and hearts of men and women.
Angels, if they exist, are not laws or cultures, or even mental states.
Angels, if they exist, are quasi-spiritual beings of one sort or another.
> Therefore when we visit other cultures we respect their taboos regarding
> these supposedly "nonexistent" beings.
Some of us try to do that.
>
> Face it, what you are promoting is that Science has somehow "proven" that
> goblins don't exist.
I am not promoting that at all.
Therefore no one should ever believe in them again. it
> is the tyranny of science that places its own crown of absolute knowledge
> upon its own head and empowers itself to make others bow down to it. This is
> no different than what Religion did previously. Science has never proven
> goblins do not exist. And neither has it proven, nor is it seeking to prove,
> that God doesn't exist.
I have some sympathy with you here. (although we must be careful about
the term "proof" - it has a strict and a less-strict usage).
>
>
>>Personally, I do not think it is reasonable to believe that goblins do
>>not exist *merely* on the basis of a lack of evidence that they do
>>exist.
I agree completely - *THAT* is my point! THAT is why the analogy with
the presumption of innocence in a courtroon does not work.
BUT, I rather doubt that anyone ever actually believes that there
>>are no goblins merely on such grounds. Speaking for myself, the belief
>>"Goblins do not exist" is more rational than the belief "Goblins do
>>exist".
>
>
> This is only because the culture you come from allows that Science is your
> supreme arbitrator in these matters.
No - that's not the reason why, in my case. I've never heard of anyone
offering scientific evidence that goblins don't exist and I do not
reject the eixstence of goblins on scientific grounds (no more than I
reject the claim that elephants wear pyjamas on scientific grounds or
becaues I take science to be a "supreme arbiter" - I don't.)
Other cultures know that sicience is
> fallible.
Scientific cultures know that science is fallible.
And that goblins often play havok with people's lives.
Well, that's what they believe. They do not *know* it unless its true.
They could be right, but I doubt it.
They don't
> simply "believe it." They KNOW it.
For S to know that P the following three condition must be met:
1) P
2) S believes that P
3) S is justified in believing that P
(2) is clearly met by many, and perhaps they satisfy (3) as well, but we
must never lose sight of the fact that it has to be true for it to be
knowledge. There can be no knowledge that P without P actually being
true. IF it is not true that there are goblins then no matter good the
justification for their belief and no matter how much they believe that
it is true, they do not know that there are goblins.
To go there and tell them they are being
> unreasonable is rude and incorrect behavior.
I don't do that.
It is always rude and incorrect
> behavior to laugh at people's personal faiths and beliefs in the Unknown.
I don't do that either. Please don't try to tarnish me with other
people's brushes.
>
> The correct way to approach preaching Christians is: "Thank you, however I
> do not share those beliefs. I have previously heard about them and
> understand them. However, again, I cannot believe in them. So thank you and
> good bye."
And I have done that often. However, if someone tries to persuade me of
the truth of their claims, I take myself to be at liberty to ask them
for justification. Moreover, I take myself to be as much at liberty as
they are in telling me what they believe to tell them what I believe and
why.
>
> Not, "Get away from me you miserable fantasy believing wretch! Your God
> sucks! He doesn't even exist! You can't even prove God exists! So blow it
> out your rear end! Moron!"
And I would not support such an attitude.
>
>
>>What makes it more rational is that it *coheres* much better
>>with the rest of my beliefs. In other words, In order to believe that
>>goblins do exist, I'd have to revise far more of my other beliefs.
>
>
> So this is how you have ordered and organized your reality.
No - this is how my beliefs are organised. I don't "have a reality".
Fine. No one is
> telling you to believe in Goblins. What I am telling you is that an open
> mind is better than one whichis prejudicially closed off.
I agree. Of course, one cannot keep one's mind entirely open without
ceasing to hold beliefs. To have a belief about anything is to start
from a position where you consider some claim to be true and another false.
Your way is not
> how everyone else orders and organizes their realities however.
I don't think you understand what my way is.
In fact,
> your way is in the minority of ways. So I, as a believer, simply say, Thank
> you for sharing your disbeliefs.
If you had simply said *that* this post would have been *a great deal
shorter*! Plainly, that is not all you say.
I have already encountered and experienced
> many things in this life I cannot truly explain and have previously put my
> trust in my belief in God. I believe God aids me every day and I have no
> argument with anyone who cannot believe me. I have no "proofs" to offer you,
> no evidence except this: I am here, and if it wasn't for my relationship
> with God, I would not be here. If you want to hear my story, fine. If not,
> fine. However I don't need to garner anymore disrespect in this life as I
> find it toxic to my ability to keep my self esteem intact. So tahnks for
> your disbelief. But please keep it.
I wasn't asking you for proofs. My post was to argue against you taking
the presumption of innocence as a general rule of reasoning. I am
interested in why you believe, however, if you'd care to share it with
me. I am interested, for example, why you think were it not for your
relationship with your god you would not be here. Would not, for
example, your being here be equally explicable in terms of your belief
that there is a god and your belief that you have a relationship with
your god?
>
>>I > suspect that that is true of almost everyone who believes that goblins
>>don't exist. Clearly, if I'd encountered a goblin (as you testify you
>>have with God), then my evidence base would be different and a different
>>belief would be more rational for me.
>>
>>MG
>
>
> God is a lot easier to find than a goblin. There are very few goblins in the
> U.S. however God is everywhere.
So you claim. But, despite looking very hard in the places theists told
me to look, (in the Bible, in Church, in the Koran, in my heart, in my
soul, etc.) so far as I can tell, I've had no encounter with Him. If you
might have somewhere else you think I should look, please let me know.
>
> happy hunting.
You too.
MG
Mark Earnest
There may be a giant whale swimming on Jupiter. Did you ever hear of the
floating gasbag theory?
Mark Earnest
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:uk46409alijj5536r...@4ax.com...
Because they come into conflict with yours in today's political agenda.
Like whether group prayer is allowed in public schools, and whether the Ten
Commandments can be posted in front of court buildings.
Mark Earnest
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rba...@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:BHM0c.10452$4o3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Yes it is. The Shiva I know about posts here sometimes.
O.K. I challenge you to meet five new people. In those five people, look
for
omniscience, omnipotence, and total goodness...that is, someone that looks
out for you more than himself.
If you do that, you will have the kind of logic atheists need to believe in
God.
You will have seen him.
Mark Earnest
"Billy Goat" <eric...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6bd3c70a.04030...@posting.google.com...
> "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:<c1uga9$f...@library1.airnews.net>...
> > "Stranger" <ath...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > news:4042bfae$0$565$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> > >
> > > "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> > > news:c1ud5s$4...@library2.airnews.net...
> > > >
> > > > You just did. You claim to be an atheist, right? And you just said
> > that
> > > > atheism does not assume that there is no God. That is a bunch of
> > baloney.
> > > > Atheism means belief that there is no God, and that is the category
that
> > > > those that say in their hearts "there is no God" fall into.
>
> Wrong. You don't have to believe "there is no God" in order to
> disbelieve that "there is God".
>
> Do newborn babies believe in God? No.
How do you know? Maybe they do believe in God. Maybe it is the mind and
the world that takes knowledge away from people as they grow older.
> Do newborn babies say in their hearts, "there is no God"? No.
>
> Newborn babies are clearly not theists. If they're not atheists, what
> are they?
If you are saying what I think you are saying, that atheists take the
position of newborns, then atheists in general would be agnostics, not
atheists, strictly speaking.
> > > > It is an indefensible position. But that is the position you fall
into.
> > > > Admit it.
>
> You know, it's funny. If you were having a conversation with someone
> who claimed to be a Christian, and during the course of the
> conversation he told you he didn't believe in Jesus, you'd probably
> tell him he shouldn't be calling himself Christian. He has labelled
> himself incorrectly.
>
> But if someone who calls himself an atheist reveals that he doesn't
> have the beliefs atheists are "supposed to" have, do you tell him he
> shouldn't be calling himself atheist? No! You continue to accept that
> he's an atheist, but you tell him he's lying about his beliefs.
The way I figure it, there are only three categories a person can fall into
about his view toward God. Believing there is a God, believing there is no
God, and not knowing whether there is a God or not.
From this forum, it seem to me that many whom claim to be atheists actually
fall into the agnostic category. Because they don't claim there is no God,
they just think it ( and "think" in this case seems to have the
meaning..."considers likely")
>
> This is why Christians are so unsuccessful at converting people: half
> the time, they're trying to change beliefs people don't actually have.
> And when they fail, they're forced to conclude that non-Christians are
> being stubborn, since Christians can't admit that they can be wrong
> about how non-Christians think.
>
> Instead of assuming that we're lying, isn't it possible that one of us
> is mistaken about what an atheist is? Why not try dealing with the
> beliefs we actually have, instead of the ones you think we're
> "supposed to" have?
I think that people whom call themselves atheists are so emotional, that
they aren't sure whether they are sure that there is a God or not. That
would be indicated by the fact that they will not claim there is no God
publicly.
Theists have a healthy fear of God, but their belief is not based on fear.
The healthy fear is more of a respect, the kind one would have for a strict
parent whom can ground one for the weekend if he screws up.
MG
angelicusrex wrote:
> "MG" <philos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c1v0ur$bke$1...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>
>>
>>angelicusrex wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dear Stranger...
>>>
>>>The Church KNEW the earth was round and a sphere.
>>
>>I doubt that. But they may have suspected.
>
>
> Oh, well if we are going to have a historical argument, I can prove the
> Church Fathers knew the world was a sphere. Aristotle had proved it
> thousands of years previously with a simple experiment, which, anyone who
> could read, had read about.
Aristotle had provided evidence. But that does not show that they
believed that Aristotle was right, or that they felt that the evidence
was conclusive.
The Church protected this knowledge from common
> people. Which is why they could read and write and no one else could unless
> taught by the Church.
I don't think that's why the Church kept reading and writing to itself.
They simply did not know exactly how large of a sphere
> it was (Columbus' calculations were off by thousands of miles...and a
> continent and another ocean...) or whether ships could sail that far without
> never being seen again. It was old wives and coastal sailors who believed in
> "the edge of the world." Which was nothing more than a simile for "I'm
> terrified to go too far."
I'm sure it was more than a simile to them. I'm sure they believed it to
be literally true.
>
>
>> They knew before Columbus
>>
>>>that the New World could be reached by sea going west.
>>
>>I doubt that very much since Columbus was trying to reach the Indies
>>(hence the "West Indies"). So far as I know, there was no clue that the
>>New World (what became known as the Americas) existed.
>
>
> They were only called the West Indies after he and everyone else found out
> years later that he had not even come close to the East Indies.
What?! Why would anyone call some islands "the West Indies" *BECAUSE*
they knew that they were nowhere need India??? That makes no sense!
To them the
> whole Eastern Coast of Asia was a New World, which had never been seen by
> Christians.
Wrong - Marco Polo.
But I made my point thinking that you meant by "The New World" what
others mean by it - the Americas.
It was barely reported of by Muslims and other traders. However
> there were already hints about this "New World" long before Columbus. The
> Vikings had already lived in it. So had Portoguese Cod Fishermen, and
> English Cod Fishermen had also camped along America's Coast and they new it
> was NOT Asia. There's a lot of good literature now on the subject.
Yes, I know, but that's not the point. The point is that you think they
knew the Americas were there, I think you're wrong. I'm not aware of any
reason to think that the Church at that time knew that the vikings (or
anyone else) had been there and it makes more sense to think they didn't
know the Americas were there - hence Columbus' surpise.
>
>> They even understood
>>
>>>there was probably another continent out there. They just wanted CONTROL
>
> of
>
>>>the situation.
>>
>>I think your quite mistaken on that.
>
>
> Prove it.
I can only report to you what I know first hand about my beliefs - I
really do think that you are mistaken on that. It's just a fact that I
think that. How would you have me prove to you that I really do think
that? I'm afraid you're going to have to take my word for what I believe
and do not believe.
As for *why* I think that, let me note that above you excused your claim
about them knowing of the New World as a claim about Asia. But above you
talk about them knowing about a new continent (so not Asia). So you
can't have it both ways. Either they knew that they could get to the New
World (meaning the East cost of Aisa) or they knew they could get to The
New World (meaning the Americas).
Columbus thought he had landed in Asia. He had no idea, when he sailed,
there was a continent in between.
My research indicates the Church was in possession of extensive
> knowledge of the New World, the shape of the earth, the movement of the
> stars and what they truly were. They kept people ignorant for the very
> reasons which finally destroyed them later. We saw that when people got
> smart, the Church collapsed into sizeable new chunks. They lost all their
> power. And this is exactly what they were afraid of.
An interesting hypothesis. I'm not convinced that your right, though. I
think they probably didn't know that there was a continent there and
they were out to get to the Indies by an easier route.
>
> But how can you, an atheist, defend the Catholic Church?
Why on Earth do you think I was defending anyone?
>
>
>>>So it was absolutely unreasonable for them to believe the earth was flat
>
> or
>
>>>that the sun circled us.
>>
>>It really depends on the evidence they had available. True, some
>>evidence was available, but there was strong evidence that it was flat -
>>it sure *looked* flat. Read Kuhn and Feyerabend, and you'll start to
>>appreciate that what was rational is not at all as clear cut as you
>>might think.
>
>
> Look, your pal
My Pal?
said it is unreasonable to believe in something for which
> there is no evidence.
Change "evidence" to "reasons" and I'd agree. It's a matter of
definition; a belief is unreasonable when it is without reasons.
Empirical evidence is just one class of reasons for belief.
That first of all is ignorant as a statement.
Why?
Second
> of all there WAS evidence but the Church would not allow it to be
> distributed or looked at by others. Columbus and Galileo et al had to be
> EXTREMELY secretive. Columbus had maps, possibly Muslim and Portuguese in
> origin which could have gotten him burned at that stake or jailed for
> treason.
Maps of what, exactly?
Galileo was just foullowing Aristotle and other Greek
> mathematicians leads.
You mean in looking for a route to the Indies? Or in thinking the world
was spherical? I'm sure you're right. But I was suggesting that whether
it was reasonable to believe that the earth was spherical depends on
what standards of evidence one brings to the issue. For example, should
one believe one's eyes (the Earth looks very, very, very flat) more than
reports of an experiment by a Greek dude many centuries earlier? It is a
question of what standards of evidence one brings to bear. In this case
there is no objective fact of the matter concerning what is more
reasonable independent of the standards of evidence.
And it nearly got him burned alive. So your atheist
> pal, in trying to prove that belief in God is unreasonable, basically just
> testified that the Church was correct in finding Columbus and a Galileo's
> findings unreasonable!
What has this got to do with what I said?
He just defended the major root cause of his
> disatisfaction with the Christians! That's like feeding a cancer! But hell,
> if you guys have to disbelieve in God so hard that it makes the Catholics
> look good, have at it!
I'm missing your point here. Does it have any relation ot what *I* said?
>
>
>> People like being unreasonable. It makes them feel
>>
>>>powerful.
>>>
>>
>>You could be right.
>
>
> In this case I am right. And I hate to be right.
You could be right (about the first sentence - I'll take your word on
the latter).
MG
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
Dodging the question? I imagine you knew I was
referring to the Hindu god.
Is it indefensible to say "There is no Shiva" or
"There is no Zeus" or "There is no Baal"?
Shifting the burden. Red herring.
You said you had logic. Logic is not a wild goose chase.
I've already met thousands of people.
Why would five new people be necessary
to make your point.
> In those five people, look
> for
> omniscience, omnipotence, and total goodness...that is, someone that looks
> out for you more than himself.
It aint there.
>
> If you do that, you will have the kind of logic atheists need to believe
in
> God.
> You will have seen him.
And I have not seen him. Where is the logic?
So why is it indefensible to say "There is no God",
"There is no Shiva", "There is no Zeus", "There is no Mithra"?
--
Ron Baker
Mark Richardson
>LOL
>
>If you scroll this down and scan it really fast, it looks like
>
>"Yes I do"
>"No you don't"
>"Yes I don't"
>"No you do"
>"So"
>"So there"
>
>.... i win %
Yes it does.
You said Birmingham!
(what are you going to reply to that Nerd Gerl?)
Mark
Nerd Gerl
>
>>LOL
>>
>>If you scroll this down and scan it really fast, it looks like
>>
>>"Yes I do"
>>"No you don't"
>>"Yes I don't"
>>"No you do"
>>"So"
>>"So there"
>>
>>.... i win %
>
>Yes it does.
>
>You said Birmingham!
>
>(what are you going to reply to that Nerd Gerl?)
I said no such thing!
TehGhodTrole
> TehGhodTrole wrote:
>
>> MG wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Personally, I do not think it is reasonable to believe that goblins
>>> do not exist *merely* on the basis of a lack of evidence that they
>>> do exist. BUT, I rather doubt that anyone ever actually believes
>>> that there are no goblins merely on such grounds. Speaking for
>>> myself, the belief "Goblins do not exist" is more rational than the
>>> belief "Goblins do exist". What makes it more rational is that it
>>> *coheres* much better with the rest of my beliefs. In other words,
>>> In order to believe that goblins do exist, I'd have to revise far
>>> more of my other beliefs. I suspect that that is true of almost
>>> everyone who believes that goblins don't exist. Clearly, if I'd
>>> encountered a goblin (as you testify you have with God), then my
>>> evidence base would be different and a different belief would be
>>> more rational for me.
>>
>>
>> How enlightening, but you miss a few essential points.
>>
>> First of all you only touch on the question of rational belief. You
>> may need to dig deeper down there.
>
> Down where? What am I supposed to be digging for? Do you mean "the
> truth"?
Yes. Dig deeper into rational belief.
>> Secondly, there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows a belief
>> in a deity as being an irrational belief.
>
> I never said that it was irrational. :)
I never said you were.
> I simply said that the
> evidence that *I* have renders belief in the non-existence of god
> more rational than the belief that there is a god.
That's what's irrational, even if it's rational to your own belief set.
The correct position is that there is no way of knowing if any
metaphysical X exists or not. To simply assume that one does not
exist because it rationalises your beliefs, is, in point of actual
fact, irrational.
> If you have other
> evidence (such as one-on-one personal contact with a divine being)
> that I don't have, then it may be entirely rational for you to adopt
> a different belief.
Why do you ask for evidence of something that cannot be shown to
either exist or not exist?
> But to make things a little clearer - what I mean by "rational" is
> essentially relative to a set of *beliefs*. For example, if you
> believe
>
> 1) that all oranges are poisonous to humans, and
> 2) that the green object in front of you is an orange,
>
> then it is rational for you to believe
>
> 3) that the green object in front of you is poisonous to humans.
Irrational \Ir*ra"tion*al\, a. [L. irrationalis: cf. F.
irrationnel. See In- not, and Rational.]
1. Not rational; void of reason or understanding; as, brutes
are irrational animals.
2. Not according to reason; absurd; foolish.
> As you can see, rationality as I am using the term has nothing to do
> with whether what you believe is *true*.
See above.
> Now, some of our beliefs derive from evidence. Hence there is a
> relationship between rationality and evidence
[snip]
See above.
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
>
> "Billy Goat" <eric...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:6bd3c70a.04030...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> news:<c1uga9$f...@library1.airnews.net>...
> > > "Stranger" <ath...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > > news:4042bfae$0$565$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> > > >
> > > > "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:c1ud5s$4...@library2.airnews.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > You just did. You claim to be an atheist, right? And you just
said
> > > that
> > > > > atheism does not assume that there is no God. That is a bunch of
> > > baloney.
> > > > > Atheism means belief that there is no God, and that is the
category
> that
> > > > > those that say in their hearts "there is no God" fall into.
> >
> > Wrong. You don't have to believe "there is no God" in order to
> > disbelieve that "there is God".
> >
> > Do newborn babies believe in God? No.
>
> How do you know? Maybe they do believe in God. Maybe it is the mind and
> the world that takes knowledge away from people as they grow older.
Shirley you're not serious.
Then why do older people feel they have to
teach children about God?
And why don't people become less religious
in their old age?
>
> > Do newborn babies say in their hearts, "there is no God"? No.
> >
> > Newborn babies are clearly not theists. If they're not atheists, what
> > are they?
>
> If you are saying what I think you are saying, that atheists take the
> position of newborns,
In a sense, some of them do just that.
> then atheists in general would be agnostics,
In another sense that is true.
> not
> atheists, strictly speaking.
Semantics.
>
>
>
> > > > > It is an indefensible position. But that is the position you fall
> into.
> > > > > Admit it.
> >
> > You know, it's funny. If you were having a conversation with someone
> > who claimed to be a Christian, and during the course of the
> > conversation he told you he didn't believe in Jesus, you'd probably
> > tell him he shouldn't be calling himself Christian. He has labelled
> > himself incorrectly.
> >
> > But if someone who calls himself an atheist reveals that he doesn't
> > have the beliefs atheists are "supposed to" have, do you tell him he
> > shouldn't be calling himself atheist? No! You continue to accept that
> > he's an atheist, but you tell him he's lying about his beliefs.
>
> The way I figure it, there are only three categories a person can fall
into
> about his view toward God. Believing there is a God, believing there is
no
> God, and not knowing whether there is a God or not.
Those aren't the only categories but generally speaking
that is not far off.
>
> From this forum, it seem to me that many whom claim to be atheists
actually
> fall into the agnostic category. Because they don't claim there is no
God,
> they just think it ( and "think" in this case seems to have the
> meaning..."considers likely")
('who', not 'whom', would have been gramatically correct.)
One might be agnostic in that they do not have
absolute proof of the (non)existance of gods.
They might at the same time be atheist
in that they believe there are no gods.
>
>
> >
> > This is why Christians are so unsuccessful at converting people: half
> > the time, they're trying to change beliefs people don't actually have.
> > And when they fail, they're forced to conclude that non-Christians are
> > being stubborn, since Christians can't admit that they can be wrong
> > about how non-Christians think.
> >
> > Instead of assuming that we're lying, isn't it possible that one of us
> > is mistaken about what an atheist is? Why not try dealing with the
> > beliefs we actually have, instead of the ones you think we're
> > "supposed to" have?
>
> I think that people whom call themselves atheists are so emotional, that
> they aren't sure whether they are sure that there is a God or not. That
> would be indicated by the fact that they will not claim there is no God
> publicly.
There is no God.
(Again, 'who' and not 'whom' would have been gramatically correct.)
Doesn't sound healthy to me.
I question the fitness of this absentee 'parent'.
--
Ron Baker
Mark Earnest
> >
> > Because every time I say anything about my reality, that there is a
> > God, atheists require proof, without giving any proof of their
>
> LOL - again, how can anyone question your state of being? Just force
> the opponent to show how he's going to validate any answer you
> give him. He can't, therefore he's a nitwit. He can't know what's
> inside your head or anyone else's. Heck, there's probably argument
> he doesn't know what's inside his own head. Smarts and reasonableness.
> That's all you need.
>
> Read this: http://tinyurl.com/269op
>
> >>> So it is unfair,
> >>> when a theist asserts that God exists, for an atheist to require
> >>> proof of that, unless he can provide proof of his own position, too.
> >>
> >> to get anywhere by doing what they do.
> >
> > It may get atheists to become agnostics,
>
> because that's precisely what I do best. The only logical position that
any
> atheist can take is one that does not vary off the nombril of agnosticism
by
> even a fraction. All atheist positions are logically invalid and I assert
> that as a prima facie accusation against atheism. And in order to make
that
> stick in the atheist craw, you do not have to make a single statement
about
> what you believe. Not a single one.
No, you only have to think you know that there is no God, to be an atheist.
An atheist would no doubt rephrase that as "You have to know there is no God
to be an atheist."
> The problem is, alt.atheism atheists who are capable of simple reasoning
> are thin on the ground so I never get to have the argument too often
because
> I deliberately identify then dismiss patently illogical nitwits out of
hand.
> I've been doing this for more years than I care to remember so I leave the
> idiots to remain in their mental torpor. You need to find people who can
> think, and you need to be able to think, too.
I prefer to deal with atheists rather than those that only think (consider
likely) that there is no God. Because as soon as you try to pin them down
as to what they mean by atheist, they do a switch, to keep you from knowing
what they really think.
> Mark Richardson is as thick as they come. He has no brain to think with.
> Pursuing any argument with him is a lost cause. But you were still
misguided
> with what you think he said. It's what he actually said that counts.
>
> > To challenge what theism is, belief in God existing, is to say God
> > does not exist.
>
> No it is not. It does not get to that stage unless the atheist asserts
> that God does not exist. You're on a winner as soon as they say that or
> ask for proof. Look:
>
> This is what you get for solid logic: http://tinyurl.com/25rn9
>
> Me: Well, yes, the confirmation is everywhere, but in the Christian is
> where God dwells, so the "confirmation" appears to me to be an
> inherent component of the experience, not an external one.
>
> Someone: Understood.
>
> Me: But not by the atheist. The athiest persists in his own crazy
> conundrum of demanding external evidence.
>
> Force the atheist there and make him stare his absurdity in the face.
> How on earth can anyone reasonably ask for evidence of something that
> can't be proved either way? They can't do it, their position is absurd.
I agree with this.
> >> The only correct position that holds any hope is that there's no
> >> proof either way.
> >
> > If that is someone's view, he should be an agnostic.
>
> 100% correct.
Thank you.
> >> If you stick to that and don't get bogged down
> >> in the other person's nitwittery, you can't lose. But creating
> >> imaginary claims where there are none isn't going to get you
> >> anywhere except into people's killfiles, and maybe identified
> >> as an object of ridicule.
> >
> > Atheists don't claim to killfile me very often. They seem to prefer a
> > battle of wits.
>
> What do they fight with then?
Intelligence
> > I did not mean to upset you.
>
> You did not upset me. I'm trying to help you here.
I am glad. Thank you.
TehGhodTrole
>> "I hold a lack of belief in any gods".
>>
>> To me that looks notionally the same as what you first stated.
>> Please say so if you disagree.
>
> I would agree, that looks acceptable based on what I first stated.
>
>>
>> The word hold implies a number of possibilities:
>
> Of the following, I choose:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 3. To have or possess, either in a concrete or an
>> abstract sense
>>
>
>> There are other possibilities, but I've chosen what I
>> think are the most appropriate meanings for the word
>> in context. Would you please detail what you actually
>> mean by the word hold in the context of the statement
>> "I hold a lack of belief in any gods".
>
> Very well. My statement was intented to convey the notion that many
> people have made claims for the existence of a metaphysical figure X
> (i.e. god, or gods).
> By "hold" I mean the possession of an abstract notion. That notion
> being acknowledgement that anyone's claim of god is true.
So, you possess the abstract notion "a lack of belief in any gods".
So, how can you possess even an abstract notion of a lack of
something? If you lack something you either don't have it or
you don't have enough of it.
So, are you saying you possess nothing of belief in gods? Or
are ou saying you possess insufficient belief in gods? Or
are you saying something else entirely?
Now we have an even bigger problem to deal with:
> I do not recognize any of those claims as valid.
That's not the same as "I hold a lack of belief in any gods".
Which is correct:
A) I do not recognize any of those claims as valid.
B) "I hold a lack of belief in any gods".
> So, perhaps more accurately, the statement should read:
>
> "I do not hold acknowledgement for any claim that god exists."
That's different again. Which one do we work with? your statements
are not consistent one after another.
> For this, I substitute "I hold a lack of belief in gods" because it is
> less tiresome to type on a daily basis, and in general less difficult
> for others to understand given some widely held misconceptions about
> atheism. The above, however, is more accurate than the widely
> accepted view. It also more accurately sets me apart from the
> "strong" atheists of the world.
So, now you've gone through all that and want to change the statement
that defines your atheism? Is that correct? If so, which one are
you going to actually stay with? And why didn't you coherently
define it the first time? And don't tell me because it's tiresome,
because you said this was serious.
You should now be seeing that you have already changed your
definition several times. Inconsistency abounds.
Nick
>> >> Would you please explain your apparent faux pas. Thank you.
>> >
>> >It would do no good unless you tell me that you are an atheist, and that
>you
>> >therefore assume that there is no God.
>> I am an atheist, and would be most happy to believe in any god. Just
>> convince me.
>
>O.K. Consider what atheists seem to think: that something has to be seen to
>be real. Now, go look for a visible being that is almighty, all good, and
>omniscient. Now talk to him. You will feel him creating you as you speak
>to him (or her, as the case may be.) If that happens, the existence of God
>may be revealed to you.
Sir, you are utterly bat-shit crazy.
*********************************************
"Plutonians are teh suk." Ignignot from ATHF
TehGhodTrole
> No, you only have to think you know that there is no God, to be an
> atheist. An atheist would no doubt rephrase that as "You have to know
> there is no God to be an atheist."
What? Rubbish.
>>> Atheists don't claim to killfile me very often. They seem to
>>> prefer a battle of wits.
>>
>> What do they fight with then?
>
> Intelligence
No wonder you get beaten up so badly. Here, add this to your collection...
*PLONK*
Flying Naked People
>Mark Earnest wrote:
>
>>> >> Would you please explain your apparent faux pas. Thank you.
>>> >
>>> >It would do no good unless you tell me that you are an atheist, and
that
>>you
>>> >therefore assume that there is no God.
>>> I am an atheist, and would be most happy to believe in any god. Just
>>> convince me.
>>
>>O.K. Consider what atheists seem to think: that something has to be seen
to
>>be real. Now, go look for a visible being that is almighty, all good, and
>>omniscient. Now talk to him. You will feel him creating you as you speak
>>to him (or her, as the case may be.) If that happens, the existence of
God
>>may be revealed to you.
>
>Sir, you are utterly bat-shit crazy.
Seek, and ye shall find. (Duh)
--
"Behind every great man, is a woman telling him what to think."
>*********************************************
Mark Earnest
Children just feel a spiritual warmth, but adults have to tell them that
that warmth is God.
> And why don't people become less religious
> in their old age?
Because they sense their mortality, and therefore are more aware of their
need for a remedy for their impending death.
>
> >
> > > Do newborn babies say in their hearts, "there is no God"? No.
> > >
> > > Newborn babies are clearly not theists. If they're not atheists, what
> > > are they?
> >
> > If you are saying what I think you are saying, that atheists take the
> > position of newborns,
>
> In a sense, some of them do just that.
>
> > then atheists in general would be agnostics,
>
> In another sense that is true.
>
> > not
> > atheists, strictly speaking.
>
> Semantics.
Please keep things black and white, here. Otherwise few discussions will be
possible.
> > I think that people whom call themselves atheists are so emotional, that
> > they aren't sure whether they are sure that there is a God or not. That
> > would be indicated by the fact that they will not claim there is no God
> > publicly.
>
> There is no God.
Though I do not agree, being a theist, I do very much so thank you for
making this statement. It makes discourse about this matter possible.
> > The way I figure it, there are only three categories a person can fall
> into
> > about his view toward God. Believing there is a God, believing there is
> no
> > God, and not knowing whether there is a God or not.
>
> Those aren't the only categories but generally speaking
> that is not far off.
Thank you.
> > Theists have a healthy fear of God, but their belief is not based on
fear.
> > The healthy fear is more of a respect, the kind one would have for a
> strict
> > parent whom can ground one for the weekend if he screws up.
>
> Doesn't sound healthy to me.
> I question the fitness of this absentee 'parent'.
He's not absent at all. He is right here on this Earth with us,
omnipresently.
Think of one man with over a billion bodies, each of which is himself (or
herself, as the individual case may be).
God has many faces, but only one voice.
Anatid Bonecki
>
> What "position that there is no God"?
>
> When are you finally going to realise that "there's no God" is no
> different whatsoever than "there's no Santa Claus"?
Ah,Virginia, but there IS a Santa Claus. It is the spirit of Christmas
giving, and we clothe it in the outfit of a jolly old elf with a red
nose, red velvet suit trimmed with white fur and he has a long white
beard. He even has a wife and lives in the North Pole, everyone knows
that! Hell, you see him on every street corner in NYC during the
season. In every dept. store he reigns. And he is the star of many TV
shows and movies. Which is more than we can say for you. In fact he
may be more real than you are.
>
> It's hardly rocket science, but your religious beliefs are irrelevant
> to us. The world doesn't revolve around them.
But Mark's world does revolve around them. As a child's revolves
around Old Kris Kringle. Except God is something even more deep and
enormous than the Spirit of Giving. He is the Spirit of Existence
itself. He comes in many forms. He is everywhere all the time. He is
One with all things and all things are One with Him. he has a
million,million names, and trillions of angels. What have you got? A
bad attitude and a big mouth? Big deal.
> You imagine that because you still haven't grasped what our position
> actually is,
Who cares what your position is, the world doesn't revolve around your
position.
> nor do you grasp that the only reason people demand proof
> from you is to get you to either put up or shut up.
Where as I ask you only to shut up. Because you couldn't give proof
that your ass exists if you made a xerox of it and showed it to
everyone here. I say you have no ASS! By golly! And I don't have to
prove my negative ASS-ertion, do I? It is simply obvious to me that
you have no ass. Can you prove you have one? Well do it! I want
absolutely confirmed outside researched proof you have an ass...not
that you ARE an ass, we already have verified that, just that you are
in possession of an ass.
> Why the fuck should we care about the irrelevant object of somebody
> else's religious beliefs?
Conversely why would anyone care about your lack of beliefs? You
cannot prove God doesn't exist. You said Santa doesn't exist, I say he
does. There is more evidence for Santa and God then there is for your
lost ass. God's been around for thousands of years. Santa for at least
a hundred or more...and he was once a real Saint. You will be around a
few more and then POOF! Who will give a shit whether you were here or
not, wrote on an NG or had an ass? No one.
I can't wait for you guys to get a dose of your own medicine.
Saint
Nick
>>>> >> Would you please explain your apparent faux pas. Thank you.
>>>> >
>>>> >It would do no good unless you tell me that you are an atheist, and
>that
>>>you
>>>> >therefore assume that there is no God.
>>>> I am an atheist, and would be most happy to believe in any god. Just
>>>> convince me.
>>>
>>>O.K. Consider what atheists seem to think: that something has to be seen
>to
>>>be real. Now, go look for a visible being that is almighty, all good, and
>>>omniscient. Now talk to him. You will feel him creating you as you speak
>>>to him (or her, as the case may be.) If that happens, the existence of
>God
>>>may be revealed to you.
>>
>>Sir, you are utterly bat-shit crazy.
>
>Seek, and ye shall find. (Duh)
What, that's it? An empty platitude and a trite little insult that was old in
1987? Oh, come ON! You can troll better than *that*, Nerd Gerl! Where are
the threats of hellfire, the smug self-righteous attitude, the randomly
capitalized nouns and pronouns, the ubiquitous yet utterly unamusing "LOL"s?
You're not even trying anymore. On a scale of one to ten, I give your latest
attempt a negative five thousand. Pitiful.
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
How do you know?
> but adults have to tell them that
> that warmth is God.
>
> > And why don't people become less religious
> > in their old age?
>
> Because they sense their mortality, and therefore are more aware of their
> need for a remedy for their impending death.
Ad hoc and it contradicts your earlier statement.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Do newborn babies say in their hearts, "there is no God"? No.
> > > >
> > > > Newborn babies are clearly not theists. If they're not atheists,
what
> > > > are they?
> > >
> > > If you are saying what I think you are saying, that atheists take the
> > > position of newborns,
> >
> > In a sense, some of them do just that.
> >
> > > then atheists in general would be agnostics,
> >
> > In another sense that is true.
> >
> > > not
> > > atheists, strictly speaking.
> >
> > Semantics.
>
> Please keep things black and white, here. Otherwise few discussions will
be
> possible.
The world is not just black and white.
>
> > > I think that people whom call themselves atheists are so emotional,
that
> > > they aren't sure whether they are sure that there is a God or not.
That
> > > would be indicated by the fact that they will not claim there is no
God
> > > publicly.
> >
> > There is no God.
>
> Though I do not agree, being a theist, I do very much so thank you for
> making this statement. It makes discourse about this matter possible.
>
>
>
> > > The way I figure it, there are only three categories a person can fall
> > into
> > > about his view toward God. Believing there is a God, believing there
is
> > no
> > > God, and not knowing whether there is a God or not.
> >
> > Those aren't the only categories but generally speaking
> > that is not far off.
>
> Thank you.
You are welcome, except that you silently snipped
things and changed the order.
Snipping silently is not honest.
>
>
> > > Theists have a healthy fear of God, but their belief is not based on
> fear.
> > > The healthy fear is more of a respect, the kind one would have for a
> > strict
> > > parent whom can ground one for the weekend if he screws up.
> >
> > Doesn't sound healthy to me.
> > I question the fitness of this absentee 'parent'.
>
> He's not absent at all. He is right here on this Earth with us,
> omnipresently.
>
> Think of one man with over a billion bodies, each of which is himself (or
> herself, as the individual case may be).
>
> God has many faces, but only one voice.
>
And what do Buddhist and Hindus suffer, not
knowing/not believing the above?
Flying Naked People
>What, that's it? An empty platitude and a trite little insult that was old
in
>1987? Oh, come ON! You can troll better than *that*, Nerd Gerl! Where
are
>the threats of hellfire, the smug self-righteous attitude, the randomly
>capitalized nouns and pronouns, the ubiquitous yet utterly unamusing
"LOL"s?
>You're not even trying anymore. On a scale of one to ten, I give your
latest
>attempt a negative five thousand. Pitiful.
Does this mean you wish you had tits?
<PLONK>
Brian Bilek
I will address things begining here, because here is where the problem
is identified.
My first post was not intended as a statement of my position using
formal logic. I was hoping to discuss the "burden of proof" issue
with you. I saw through your response that you were looking for a
formal statement of my position regarding any metaphysical X, and as
such I needed to provide you with a statement of my position in
unambiguous language.
The language I use when not logically debating my position is
different for the reason I give below, and so it wasn't what you are
looking for. As I explained, the position statement I use is intended
to be recognized and understood without the use of formal logic.
In short, I didn't give you what you wanted at first, and I corrected
my mistake. It would have helped if I had recognized it immediately
and just started over...I apologize for that. Too many threads, too
much confusion.
>
>> For this, I substitute "I hold a lack of belief in gods" because it is
>> less tiresome to type on a daily basis, and in general less difficult
>> for others to understand given some widely held misconceptions about
>> atheism. The above, however, is more accurate than the widely
>> accepted view. It also more accurately sets me apart from the
>> "strong" atheists of the world.
>
>So, now you've gone through all that and want to change the statement
>that defines your atheism? Is that correct? If so, which one are
>you going to actually stay with? And why didn't you coherently
>define it the first time? And don't tell me because it's tiresome,
>because you said this was serious.
I see the problems, yes. Hopefully you see the explanation for why
they exist.
>
>You should now be seeing that you have already changed your
>definition several times. Inconsistency abounds.
The statement: "I do not hold acknowledgement for any claim that god
exists" is a formal statement of my position and is not subject to
change during the course of arguments attacking that position.
-Brian
Nerd Gerl
>The statement: "I do not hold acknowledgement for any claim that god
>exists" is a formal statement of my position and is not subject to
>change during the course of arguments attacking that position.
<bawk - bawk - ba-a-a-a-awk>
Or is that, "ag - ag - nah-a-a-a-a-a-ahs-tic"?
TehGhodTrole
[snip]
> I will address things begining here, because here is where the problem
> is identified.
>
> My first post was not intended as a statement of my position using
> formal logic.
This isn't about formal logic. It's about notions. Your world-view
isn't constructed from formal logic. Well, it shouldn't be unless
you're an early and out-dated AI system.
> I was hoping to discuss the "burden of proof" issue
> with you. I saw through your response that you were looking for a
> formal statement of my position regarding any metaphysical X, and as
> such I needed to provide you with a statement of my position in
> unambiguous language.
You saw wrong.
> The language I use when not logically debating my position is
> different for the reason I give below,
That to me is entirely inconsistent. Why can't you clearly and
succinctly define your atheism in terms of notions, you know,
like everyone else does? Nobody walks around saying stuff like:
Let p = God
Not p
> and so it wasn't what you are
> looking for.
It was _precisely_ what I was looking for. And it was perfect
to illustrate part of my case against atheism because you could
not coherently define your own atheism and stick to one
definition. You had to keep changing it to make sense even to
yourself, I suspect.
> As I explained, the position statement I use is intended
> to be recognized and understood without the use of formal logic.
>
> In short, I didn't give you what you wanted at first, and I corrected
> my mistake. It would have helped if I had recognized it immediately
> and just started over...I apologize for that. Too many threads, too
> much confusion.
LOL - I still haven't gotten anything out of you.
> I see the problems, yes. Hopefully you see the explanation for why
> they exist.
And?
>> You should now be seeing that you have already changed your
>> definition several times. Inconsistency abounds.
>
> The statement: "I do not hold acknowledgement for any claim that god
> exists" is a formal statement of my position and is not subject to
> change during the course of arguments attacking that position.
LOL. I don't want a formal statement based on a logical proposition.
I want you to coherently define your atheism by way of expressing
notions. I want you to elucidate on your notions of atheism.
Ok, well, it's something to work with...
"I do not hold acknowledgement for any claim that god exists"
Ok, first of all, why not? That is, NOTIONALLY, why do you
not acknowledge any claim that god exists?
Actually, you've unwittingly made my job much easier :)
Brian Bilek
<nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
<snip>
>You should now be seeing that you have already changed your
>definition several times. Inconsistency abounds.
As an aside, one of the reasons I am offering up my position to you
for dissection is because of the very fact that I am unaccustomed to
using formal logic in argument - as I said, I am an amateur. The
language I use for such arguments is not refined to a point where what
I say is exactly what I mean. I fully expect to find a wealth of
inconsistencies; I hope you can expose all of them. It will, no
doubt, be fun for you. :)
I hope to, when all is said and done, be able to come up with a
position statement and arguments which follow that linguistically
convey exactly what I mean to say. It is no fun, for me at least, to
have an argument defeated due to poor use of words. I would much
rather it be lost on its merits.
-Brian
Nick
>>What, that's it? An empty platitude and a trite little insult that was old
>in
>>1987? Oh, come ON! You can troll better than *that*, Nerd Gerl! Where
>are
>>the threats of hellfire, the smug self-righteous attitude, the randomly
>>capitalized nouns and pronouns, the ubiquitous yet utterly unamusing
>"LOL"s?
>>You're not even trying anymore. On a scale of one to ten, I give your
>latest
>>attempt a negative five thousand. Pitiful.
>
>Does this mean you wish you had tits?
>
><PLONK>
I wonder, when you write PLONK at the end of those posts which you don't like,
are you actually putting the people who wrote those posts into your killfile?
Or are you just copying what everyone else writes in response to you, without
realizing that it means they are now filtering out your posts? Well, if you
respond to this post, that will pretty much answer my question.
Mark Earnest
They feel something, and that makes as much sense as to what they feel as
anything else I can imagine.
> > but adults have to tell them that
> > that warmth is God.
> >
> > > And why don't people become less religious
> > > in their old age?
> >
> > Because they sense their mortality, and therefore are more aware of
their
> > need for a remedy for their impending death.
>
> Ad hoc and it contradicts your earlier statement.
No, I meant maybe children lose their innate knowledge of God as they grow
older. I did not mean that it would necessarily continue this way. For
atheists it seems to, though.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Do newborn babies say in their hearts, "there is no God"? No.
> > > > >
> > > > > Newborn babies are clearly not theists. If they're not atheists,
> what
> > > > > are they?
> > > >
> > > > If you are saying what I think you are saying, that atheists take
the
> > > > position of newborns,
> > >
> > > In a sense, some of them do just that.
> > >
> > > > then atheists in general would be agnostics,
> > >
> > > In another sense that is true.
> > >
> > > > not
> > > > atheists, strictly speaking.
> > >
> > > Semantics.
> >
> > Please keep things black and white, here. Otherwise few discussions
will
> be
> > possible.
>
> The world is not just black and white.
But it should be.
> >
> > > > I think that people whom call themselves atheists are so emotional,
> that
> > > > they aren't sure whether they are sure that there is a God or not.
> That
> > > > would be indicated by the fact that they will not claim there is no
> God
> > > > publicly.
> > >
> > > There is no God.
> >
> > Though I do not agree, being a theist, I do very much so thank you for
> > making this statement. It makes discourse about this matter possible.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > The way I figure it, there are only three categories a person can
fall
> > > into
> > > > about his view toward God. Believing there is a God, believing
there
> is
> > > no
> > > > God, and not knowing whether there is a God or not.
> > >
> > > Those aren't the only categories but generally speaking
> > > that is not far off.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> You are welcome, except that you silently snipped
> things and changed the order.
> Snipping silently is not honest.
Sorry, I accidentally clipped too much, and had to go and find what I
clipped and try to remember where it was supposed to go. :)
> >
> >
> > > > Theists have a healthy fear of God, but their belief is not based on
> > fear.
> > > > The healthy fear is more of a respect, the kind one would have for a
> > > strict
> > > > parent whom can ground one for the weekend if he screws up.
> > >
> > > Doesn't sound healthy to me.
> > > I question the fitness of this absentee 'parent'.
> >
> > He's not absent at all. He is right here on this Earth with us,
> > omnipresently.
> >
> > Think of one man with over a billion bodies, each of which is himself
(or
> > herself, as the individual case may be).
> >
> > God has many faces, but only one voice.
> >
>
> And what do Buddhist and Hindus suffer, not
> knowing/not believing the above?
God is in Buddhist and Hindu cultures too. They just define what God is
differently than Christians do. Believe it or not, God even exists in
atheists'
cultures. He just rearranges everything he is into something only atheists
can understand.
God is mysterious...no one has ever figured out precisely what he is or why
he does things.
Brian Bilek
wrote:
>Brian Bilek wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> I will address things begining here, because here is where the problem
>> is identified.
>>
>> My first post was not intended as a statement of my position using
>> formal logic.
>
>This isn't about formal logic. It's about notions. Your world-view
>isn't constructed from formal logic. Well, it shouldn't be unless
>you're an early and out-dated AI system.
Then I am confused. You seem to be unwilling to deal with someone
unless their statements look very much like formal logic. You attack
individual words. I thought you wanted a formal statement. See
below, I'll make your job easier ;)
>
>> I was hoping to discuss the "burden of proof" issue
>> with you. I saw through your response that you were looking for a
>> formal statement of my position regarding any metaphysical X, and as
>> such I needed to provide you with a statement of my position in
>> unambiguous language.
>
>You saw wrong.
Then I apologize.
>
>> The language I use when not logically debating my position is
>> different for the reason I give below,
>
>That to me is entirely inconsistent. Why can't you clearly and
>succinctly define your atheism in terms of notions, you know,
>like everyone else does? Nobody walks around saying stuff like:
>
>Let p = God
>Not p
Ok, I will try. Be patient with me :)
>
>> and so it wasn't what you are
>> looking for.
>
>It was _precisely_ what I was looking for. And it was perfect
>to illustrate part of my case against atheism because you could
>not coherently define your own atheism and stick to one
>definition. You had to keep changing it to make sense even to
>yourself, I suspect.
No, words can be very ambiguous. I do have a concept in my head I
wish to express, however. Hopefully I can express it coherently
below.
>
>> As I explained, the position statement I use is intended
>> to be recognized and understood without the use of formal logic.
>>
>> In short, I didn't give you what you wanted at first, and I corrected
>> my mistake. It would have helped if I had recognized it immediately
>> and just started over...I apologize for that. Too many threads, too
>> much confusion.
>
>LOL - I still haven't gotten anything out of you.
Sorry, I'm doing my best. I'm new at this :)
>
>> I see the problems, yes. Hopefully you see the explanation for why
>> they exist.
>
>And?
And what? You were right, you have exposed inconsistencies.
>
>>> You should now be seeing that you have already changed your
>>> definition several times. Inconsistency abounds.
>>
>> The statement: "I do not hold acknowledgement for any claim that god
>> exists" is a formal statement of my position and is not subject to
>> change during the course of arguments attacking that position.
>
>LOL. I don't want a formal statement based on a logical proposition.
>I want you to coherently define your atheism by way of expressing
>notions. I want you to elucidate on your notions of atheism.
>
>Ok, well, it's something to work with...
>
>"I do not hold acknowledgement for any claim that god exists"
>
>Ok, first of all, why not? That is, NOTIONALLY, why do you
>not acknowledge any claim that god exists?
>
>Actually, you've unwittingly made my job much easier :)
Hopefully, this makes it even easier :)
For any definition of a god where the existence of that god cannot be
proven or disproven, I do not acknowledge the claim for two reasons:
First, I have not seen a claim for the existence of a god which was
logically consistent.
Second, since the claim can be neither proved nor disproved, I make a
heuristic judgement based on past history. Including: previous
god-definitions which have been inconsistent with science,
"historical" events described by various faiths which can be shown to
have never happened, and past and present religious belief/matters of
faith which go against the body of scientific knowledge.
That is, those who believe in various gods have made a great number of
claims based on their belief in said gods which have been shown to be
false. Those who believe in various gods and have made claims
attributable to said gods have never been shown to be true.
That is why I do not acknowledge any claims that god exists.
Is that better?
-Brian