Is atheism viable?
one that cries out in the wilderness
reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
paragraphs).
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Thank you
John Hattan
Funny, a minute ago you were trumpeting this page:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
the top "mistake" of which is demanding that atheists must prove their
position true for it to be valid, which the page you just posted commits
in paragraph one.
The next "mistake" is to label atheists, which the page you posted
commits at the end when it states that an atheist thinks himself to be a
god.
Methinks your new favorite reference needs a little work, as it commits
the very problems it says are mistakes.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Sentinel
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence of just
about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes thousands of
gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
The only questions that DO matter should be:
Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
>>> Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims should
start becoming very suspect...
one that cries out in the wilderness
news:30mrnvkn9rd47th25...@4ax.com...
Good point, sir. :o\
one that cries out in the wilderness
"Sentinel" <NOSPAMb...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:blklji$ddfur$1...@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
> news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
> > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> > reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
> you
> > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> > paragraphs).
> >
> > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
> >
> > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
we
> > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>
> Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence of
just
> about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes thousands
of
> gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
I agree.
> The only questions that DO matter should be:
>
> Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important question ever.
Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to get to the
center of a tootsie pop".
It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that space
just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he has told
us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of faith
and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
heads. A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you when
they are not forced to.
>
> >>> Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims should
> start becoming very suspect...
I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
Denis Loubet
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
The theist says "There's a god."
The atheist says "I don't believe you."
That's all.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
one that cries out in the wilderness
news:juOdnQ6jPJH...@io.com...
God.
John Hattan
>"Sentinel" <NOSPAMb...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>news:blklji$ddfur$1...@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
>> news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
>> > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>> > reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
>> you
>> > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
>> > paragraphs).
>> >
>> > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>> >
>> > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
>we
>> > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>>
>> Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence of
>just
>> about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes thousands
>of
>> gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
>
>I agree.
>
>> The only questions that DO matter should be:
>>
>> Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
>
>It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important question ever.
I think a better one would be "how can we better make everyone healthy
and happy?"
>Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to get to the
>center of a tootsie pop".
>
>It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
>exists.
It seems evident to a Hindu that Brahman, Shiva, Vishnu, and Ganesh
exist. Why are they wrong and you right?
>Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that space
>just created itself either.
Umm, space (aka a vacuum) is nothing, so what's to create?
>I cannot explain how God exists. All he has told
>us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
>
>I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of faith
>and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
>evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
>heads.
How so? There's irrefutable evidence that the Earth exists. Does that
make us a bunch of robots?
>A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you when
>they are not forced to.
Do you believe that those who don't believe in your god are punished for
their foolishness?
>> >>> Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims should
>> start becoming very suspect...
>
>I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
And you would be wrong. Your proof is nothing but "because I say so".
Nikolaos D. Bougalis
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7ddd60$0$35831$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
Arguing from awe is a logical fallacy. The arguments that have to do
with the "beginning" -- there are different variations -- have been
thorougly refuted. See George H. Smith's book, "Atheism: The Case Against
God."
And for the record, God hasn't told us anything. All we have is stories
and hearsay, corrected, modified and updated through the last few thousand
years (depending on your variety of God), which each different sect seems to
interpret differently.
> I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of
faith
> and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
> evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
> heads. A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you when
> they are not forced to.
If you loved someone, who was not forced to love you back, would you
then proceed to punish them for not doing so?
> > >>> Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims
should
> > start becoming very suspect...
>
> I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
Really? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all. But remember, a
prerequisite for proving evidence for God is proving a coherent, logical
definition for God first. After all, you can't provide evidence for
something that is not clearly defined.
-n
Nikolaos D. Bougalis
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
Not entirely. That would be the answer of an agnostic.
There's no objective evidence for the existence of God, and therefore,
no reason to believe in it -- much like with Santa Claus.
Furthermore, there is no logical, coherent definition of God (God with a
G, usually refers to the Christian God), and so, just like "square circles,"
God cannot possibly exist .
-n
*Nemo*
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote:
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
> would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> paragraphs).
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
I see this:
"In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. "
What exactly would be the point in discussing the "validity" of
skepticism about myths?
> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>
There's no need to support a negative position. Those who make a
positive claim need to provide supporting evidence. If you want me to
believe in a "god" then you have to define it logically and provide
evidence of its existence. All I have to do is decide whether your
definition is logical, and whether your evidence is believable.
Is that really so hard to understand?
> Thank you
>
Whatever...
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Maverick
wrote:
"The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove
since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are
no proofs for atheism’s truth and there are no proofs that there is no
God, the atheist must hold his position by faith."
Blabla. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. This means that I
can not believe in god, because there is simply no evidence. It's not
difficult to understand, that it is those who make the claim that god
exist that have to back it up. Another example are the green elephants
that live on mars. Do you believe that? If no, then your position is
based on faith, and not lack of evidence. Interesting.
"If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument
can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable.
It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism
brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life."
Show me the evidence.
"There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it is possible that there is no God."
Hahaha. That's the understatement of the year. :)
"But, stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a
reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is
possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make
it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely
because it is merely a possibility? Not at all."
Likewise if you said that there is a god. This part of the text is one
of the best. It completely undermines the theist position in a rather
vain but highly amusing attempt at undermining atheism. Bravo; I
applaud any comedic statements to lighten up the "debate".
"So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being
a logical option is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim
viability. They must come up with more than "It is possible,"
otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the
atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the
position that Jupiterian ice cream exists."
Theists are the ones making claims that god exist, and they are
certainly not satisfied only by saying it is possible, no, they say it
is true. Of course, there is no evidence and no reason to say such a
thing. But, that is something that theists rather not think about,
right?
"But there is another problem for atheists."
Not so many problems as frequent annoyances also reffered to as
'fundamentalists'.
"Refuting evidences for God’s existence does not prove atheism true
anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the
reality of the marriage."
One thing is surely even worse; to believe in non-existing evidence for
God's existence, don't you think?
"Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God
does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is
intellectually indefensible."
I do not have to believe my lack in belief. There is no evidence, so
why should I believe?
"At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences
for God so far presented."
What do you think I've been doing so far? Since there is no evidence,
there's no reason to believe. I think it's sad that we have to explain
this all the time. Please, I beg of thee... just understand, ok?
"They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist
cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world."
How could we, when you theists time and again refuse to show us the
real evidence and instead only show us anecdotes, second hand accounts,
verses from a millenia old book...? Show us the real hard and
convincing evidence that you doubtly possess! I am sure they are there,
otherwise religion would have died out from lack of support.
"At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented
has been insufficient. Therefore, since there could be evidences
presented in the future, the atheist must acknowledge that there may
indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist an agnostic
since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence."
Blabla. An atheism lack the belief in god or gods. I also lack the
belief in the existence of invisible pink unicorns or green elephants
on mars. Do you understand why I lack such belief?
"This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God’s existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like
the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
themselves."
I'm not a god.
Randy Story
"*Nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-0F561D...@news04.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com>,
> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> > reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
you
> > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> > paragraphs).
> >
> > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
> >
> I see this:
> "In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
> validity of atheism. "
>
> What exactly would be the point in discussing the "validity" of
> skepticism about myths?
>
> > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
we
> > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
> >
> There's no need to support a negative position. Those who make a
> positive claim need to provide supporting evidence. If you want me to
> believe in a "god" then you have to define it logically and provide
> evidence of its existence. All I have to do is decide whether your
> definition is logical, and whether your evidence is believable.
>
> Is that really so hard to understand?
You're right, there is no need to to support a negative position. It is
living in denial of all other truth claims. The problem is, all these claims
may be true. If they are true and you choose to live in denial, who's the
fool.
Nikolaos D. Bougalis
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vnrsmj9...@corp.supernews.com...
Ahh there we go with Pascal's wager again... "Believe, OR ELSE!!!" Is
that the best you guys can muster?
-n
Maverick
It's better to miss one valid target too many than hit one invalid
target too many. Anyway, how would you support the claims that god
exist?
Randy Story
"Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <ni...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:aAlfb.12373$Rd4.10650@fed1read07...
That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being which
participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
spakka
> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:juOdnQ6jPJH...@io.com...
>>The theist says "There's a god."
>>The atheist says "I don't believe you."
>>
>>That's all.
>>
>>Denis Loubet
>>dlo...@io.com
>>http://www.io.com/~dloubet
> As should be the atheists reply to someone who says aboslutely there is no
> God.
Would you say that there is no Santa Claus?
Randy Story
type of evidence you seek. Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
world view, only undeniability is.
John Hattan
>That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
>potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
>being part of the space time universe.
Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
>The source of all finite being which
>participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
>Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
>Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
Right on that count.
Don Kresch
in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> let us all know that:
>I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
>would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
>paragraphs).
>
>http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Apologia is laughable and intellectually insulting.
>It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
>can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.
It doesn't need to be proven.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Christopher A. Lee
No need to read it - atheism isn't what you think. All an atheist is,
is somebody who isn't any kind of theist.
>Thank you
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism.
Troll.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
Denis Loubet
It has not been demonstrated that they are truth claims.
> The problem is, all these claims
> may be true. If they are true and you choose to live in denial, who's the
> fool.
The one who believes them with no reason to do so. A stopped clock is right
twice a day, does that mean it's accurate?
It doesn't matter if something is true or not, if there's no evidence that
it's true, then it's irrational to believe that it is.
Is your faith in your religion based on the idea that you've GUESSED right?
What did you do, flip a coin?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
And Randy twists his brain into a balloon animal!
Isn't that amazing folks? You've been a great audience! Randy will be
performing more stunts of breathtaking idiocy for your amusement, check
the EAC playbill for show times!
Denis Loubet
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
Sure, I'll bite. What's your point?
Denis Loubet
> I would never want you to believe without evidence.
Then why are you talking at us?
> The problem is with the
> type of evidence you seek.
No, the problem is with the evidence you don't have.
> Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
> world view,
Why? Because you say so? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Empiricism has worked just great for me.
> only undeniability is.
Please elaborate. Your claim makes no sense as it currently stands.
--
GlennGlenn
cries out in the wilderness <i.m.@peace> wrote:
> It certainly does take a leap of faith and you're looking for irrefutable proof.
Oh, it takes *much* more than that. It takes a conceptual leap to
decide that a proposed god or god-set has a given set of
characteristics. In other words, it takes a creative leap* to conceive
of the "destination" for said leap of faith.
* Or, if the leap one is to make is toward a "prefab" god (such as, for
instance, one of the many varieties of Christian gods generally labeled
"God") or gods, such a leap is not so much creative as it is, er,
uncreative... receptive, even, of someone else's god-propostion.
--
--GlennGlenn--aa#825--
--diptho...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com--
--Lost & seeing double somewhere in Hollywood, CA--
GlennGlenn
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> You're right, there is no need to to support a negative position.
How 'bout that!
> It is living in denial of all other truth claims.
I can't parse this. *Who* lives in denial of *which* truth claims?
Are you "living in denial" of any "truth claims"?
> The problem is, all these claims may be true.
Even the ones that contradict one another?
> If they are true and you choose to live in denial, who's the fool.
Ah, the threat motive to believe. So I take it you choose to believe
the "truth claim" that holds the biggest gun to your head.
GlennGlenn
cries out in the wilderness <i.m.@peace> wrote:
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position
Then LEARN it.
The other Donald
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskan...@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.03....@eac.org...
Don't start with the EAC crap again, Mark. My EAC memo distinctly states
that the EAC does not exist, and neither does the memo I am reading. This
same non-existent memo also clearly states that the "playbill" is all in
your head, and any references to it will give us permission to electrocute
your nuts until you agree.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Atheist FF/EMT
The other Donald
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
you
> would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> paragraphs).
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>
>
Ask, and ye shall receive.
I tried to read your* work, but found it difficult to get past the
inaccuracy of the first sentence:
(* I'm assuming you wrote it)
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position.
This is wrong. Atheism is a zero position, or a lack of quantity. Much like
black is not a color, but an absence of color.
Since this appears to be your premise and it is wrong, the rest of it wasn't
worth it. I also noticed that other posters have already shredded it to
pieces.
Dr. DuFonet
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
you
> would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> paragraphs).
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>
> Thank you
>
infringement:
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence.
<snipped>
This would make the atheist an agnostic since at best the atheist can only
be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
I have copied this and posted it. So sue me. It seems to be very logical,
except for the last sentence. attacking Christianity is a fun sport only
because Christianity is ridiculous prima facie, and an historical
anachronism. As far as my criticizing the rest of the article, I would for
the mement, leave that pleasant task to the eloquence of others in this
forum, if they desire to do so. It seems that the author is under the
impression that atheists are a different species from those pliable sorts of
nice manipulable people he is familiar with.
Walking on Glass
in alt.atheism, news:vnru2d5...@corp.supernews.com:
> I would never want you to believe without evidence.
Well, I'm glad to hear that. But...
> The problem is
> with the type of evidence you seek.
Here we go...
> Empiricism is not the correct
> truth test for a world view, only undeniability is.
It is undeniable that Cthulhu exists, H. P. Lovecraft said so in many
books. You cannot deny that (check any HPL anthology), therefore H. P.
Lovecraft's worldview was right?!
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
Martin Thomas
wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote:
>I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
>would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
>paragraphs).
>
>http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
>It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
>can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
You say in the article:
: Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the
: basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on
: the attack and negate any evidences presented for God’s
: existence in order to give intellectual credence to their
: position.
My experience was the other way round. When I was 11 I believed
in God, just because I had been told about God before I was able
to think critically about it. Then I was presented with several
'proofs' of the existence of God and saw they were nonsense.
Fairly soon I was calling myself an agnostic.
Most regulars of alt.atheism definer atheism as 'lack of belief
in God or gods'. Most people define atheism as 'belief in the non
existence of God'. I fall somewhere in between.
'God', as most Christians use the word, is a concept which I do
not take any more seriously than I take Santa Claus. Actually, I
hardly ever refer to myself as an atheist, I do not like pigeon
holes. And there is a very wide variation in attitude and belief
among those who either call themselves atheists; or those who fit
with either of the 2 definitions I quoted above.
Your article gets more confused as it goes on. You say:
: So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it
: being a logical option is not sufficient grounds for atheists to
: claim viability.
but I have never heard of an atheist claiming that.
Why do I regard the concept of 'God', as most Christians use the
word, as referring to something that almost certainly not there?
The claim, as I see it, is that the existence is divided into 2
pieces. One is called 'God' and the other is called 'The
Universe'. The first piece created the second piece. The division
is claimed to be absolute, everything is either in one piece or
the other one. Where, in my experience, is there anything like
this absolute division? Only in the human mind! The mind likes to
chop things up like that.
The fundamental division is the idea that 'I' am a separate
entity, unconnected with the rest of existence. Anyone who
explores their experience deeply enough will see that this is an
illusion - there is no separate entity.
This might make me a pantheist or an atheist. Rationally
speaking, the 2 are equivalent, which might say something about
the limitations of rationality. The 2 points of view feel very
different, even if they are looking out at the same existence.
The idea that 'God' is out there impoverishes this moment. Better
have God right here now - or else have no God.
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
>potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
>being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being which
>participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Rhetoric. Have objective evidence?
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
wilderness" <i.m.@peace> posted in alt.atheism:
>As should be the atheists reply to someone who says aboslutely there is no
>God.
The claim that something exists bears the burden of proof. The claim
to not accept the original claim bears none.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>You're right, there is no need to to support a negative position. It is
>living in denial of all other truth claims. The problem is, all these claims
>may be true. If they are true and you choose to live in denial, who's the
>fool.
If they're not and you choose to accept them, who's the fool?
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>I would never want you to believe without evidence. The problem is with the
>type of evidence you seek.
The ONLY valid evidence is objective evidence, and that's all we ask
for.
> Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
>world view, only undeniability is.
Nope - opinion doesn't count at all.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
Randy Story
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:alurnvcraejlngavb...@4ax.com...
> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
> >That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
no
> >potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
not
> >being part of the space time universe.
>
> Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
>
> >The source of all finite being which
> >participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
>
> If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
> infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
> >Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
> >Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
>
> Right on that count.
Randy Story
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:p9esnvsdb1tuf366n...@Pern.rk...
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
no
> >potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
not
> >being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being
which
> >participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
>
> Rhetoric. Have objective evidence
He asked for a definition!! I gave it, lets go from there.
Nikolaos D. Bougalis
That's really no definition at all. It's just a lot of handwaving//
> Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
What exactly is "ultimate reality?" It is like HDTV compared to normal
TV?
> Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
The above is really no definition. So, you are right, it does not help
at all.
-n
Nikolaos D. Bougalis
Do you actually *believe* this stuff, or are you just grasping at
straws, in an attempt to salvage your sinking position?
-n
johac
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote:
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
> would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> paragraphs).
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>
> Thank you
>
The author of that article obviously doen't know what atheism is. It
is simply lack of belief in gods. Period.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
johac
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> I would never want you to believe without evidence. The problem is with the
> type of evidence you seek. Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
> world view, only undeniability is.
>
>
As I write this, there is an invisible, undetectable UFO circling
above your house. Go ahead. Deny it. Prove that it doesn't exist.
Prove that it is impossible. You can't.
On the other hand, unless I or someone else gives you clear,
demonstrable, verifiable, objective evidence that there is one, why
should you believe me?
The reasons that you give will be the same as the ones for why I
don't believe in gods.
Levy Oates
>
>You're right, there is no need to to support a negative position. It is
>living in denial of all other truth claims. The problem is, all these claims
>may be true. If they are true and you choose to live in denial, who's the
>fool.
>
Randy, calling somone a fool is not evidence, nor is it a very good argument.
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
Thomas P.
wrote:
>
>"Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <ni...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
>news:aAlfb.12373$Rd4.10650@fed1read07...
snip
>> Really? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all. But remember, a
>> prerequisite for proving evidence for God is proving a coherent, logical
>> definition for God first. After all, you can't provide evidence for
>> something that is not clearly defined.
>
>
>
>That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
>potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being,
Or, in brief, nothing.
>purely spiritual not
>being part of the space time universe.
In short, not existing.
>The source of all finite being which
>participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Or god is the opposite of that which is not god.
>
>Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
>Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
>
Oh it helps quite a bit.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
Thomas P.
wrote:
>I would never want you to believe without evidence. The problem is with the
>type of evidence you seek. Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
>world view, only undeniability is.
>
It is undeniable that the planets travel around the Earth in perfect
circles. That was the undeniable conclusion reached without empirical
evidence. It was undeniable until empirical evidence was acquired.
Your position is pure, unaldulterated nonsense.
*Nemo*
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> > There's no need to support a negative position. Those who make a
> > positive claim need to provide supporting evidence. If you want me to
> > believe in a "god" then you have to define it logically and provide
> > evidence of its existence. All I have to do is decide whether your
> > definition is logical, and whether your evidence is believable.
> >
> > Is that really so hard to understand?
>
> You're right, there is no need to to support a negative position. It is
> living in denial of all other truth claims. The problem is, all these claims
> may be true. If they are true and you choose to live in denial, who's the
> fool.
It is only foolish to deny truth in the face of evidence that supports
that truth. I've seen no evidence to support the truth claims of any
supernatural existence. How could I then be considered foolish?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
*Nemo*
johac <jha...@remove.ixpres.com> wrote:
> In article <vnru2d5...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
> > I would never want you to believe without evidence. The problem is with the
> > type of evidence you seek. Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
> > world view, only undeniability is.
> >
> >
>
> As I write this, there is an invisible, undetectable UFO circling
> above your house. Go ahead. Deny it. Prove that it doesn't exist.
> Prove that it is impossible. You can't.
>
> On the other hand, unless I or someone else gives you clear,
> demonstrable, verifiable, objective evidence that there is one, why
> should you believe me?
>
> The reasons that you give will be the same as the ones for why I
> don't believe in gods.
Dude! You forgot to offer *empirical* evidence. Randy doesn't buy that
shit, you know...
Mark K. Bilbo
What post are you talking about? I never said anything about an ACE. CEA.
Whatevertheheck.
Are you feeling okay?
Eric Pepke
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
> would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> paragraphs).
I hope this is true that you are trying to be considerate. In good faith, I
will try to explain it and also try to explain why you are getting some
hostile responses.
I can guess why you think that it "pegs" atheism, because it is a
common description of a Christian view of atheism. That's where
it gets bogged down, of course. Theists and atheists are different. This
may seem elementary, but I've met so many theists who seem to have a
hard time wrapping their heads around very basic things about atheist,
including our not believing that a god or gods exist. The differences
work their way into our basic presumptions, which work their way into
the language.
OK, on to the text:
> In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any
> evidence for the validity of atheism.
So far, so good.
> How do you prove that in all places and all times,
> there is no God?
OK, now we're getting to something. There is no way, of course,
to prove that at all places and all times, there is no god. Maybe
a god lived on Proxima but died in 1895. Show me his
corpse, and I might believe it.
And there are people who call the universe "god," and there
was a character on Max Headroom who had a toad named "god,"
and of course there is a corporation called "GOD" for "Gathering
of Developers," and some people call small statues gods.
But that's not the kind of god that the overwhelming majority of
theists, including all Christians, speak of. They speak of a god
who is right here right now or, at worst, only a prayer away.
This is *their* conception, not *ours*, and we are entitled to
respond to it. Atheists didn't make up the characteristics of
god, and it's quite reasonable to expect Christian apologetics
to at least keep track of the concepts that are theirs. If
Chrisitianity is about a dead god on Proxima, then say so.
If not, stick to the point.
> Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are
> no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by
> faith.
DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!
By this little bit of wordplay, ALL civil lawsuits are decided on the basis
of faith. That's because they're decided based on the preponderance
of evidence. And since that isn't the same as "proof," it must be
"faith."
It is at this point that atheists become irritated. It's transparently
an attempt to rephrase atheism in theistic terms. It's also
magnificently, proudly, and obviously stupid.
In what I laughingly call the real world, *almost nothing* that
people believe is based on proof. Almost everything that is
rationally believed is believed on the basis of the preponderance
of evidence, whether it's a positive or a negative belief. I believe
that none of the people around me are controlled by brain waves
sent from UFO's, even though I cannot prove it.
Perhaps Christians believe that the idea of a god is somehow
special, that unlike the millions of other things that people
believe on the preponderance of faith, that it somehow requires
a hard-edged division between "proof" and "faith" and there is
nothing else. However, atheists don't generally believe that
ideas of god are in this special category. (Many agnostics, on
the other hand, do seem to have this belief. They have a separate
newsgroup).
> Faith, however, is not something atheists like to
> claim as the basis of adhering to atheism.
See above.
> Therefore, atheists must
> go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God's existence
> in order to give intellectual credence to their position.
Exsqueeze me? I baking powder?
When was the last time an atheist came and knocked on your door?
Responding to assertions presented as evidence for the existence
of a god is called discourse.
> If I said it is
> possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it
> intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it
> is merely a possibility?
And if I say, based on the preponderance of evidence, that I lack the
belief that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, then according to
this *clown* that's Faith, because there is no proof that it isn't.
Because that's exactly what he said about lack of belief in a god.
To me as an atheist, the claim that there *is* an ice cream factory on
Jupiter is very much like the claim that there *is* a god hiding somewhere,
and so it is extremely obvious to me and most atheists what kind
of fancy rhetorical footwork is going on here.
It doesn't appear to be obvious to most theists, though, probably
because of those preconceptions I mentioned earlier. Try replacing
"God" with "Cthulhu" everywhere and see if it is clearer.
Let's compare a couple of sentences in the last two paragraphs to see
the character of the rhetoric some more:
1. > Refuting evidences for God's existence does not prove atheism true
anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the
reality of the marriage.
2. > They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
So we have 1, which makes perfect sense and is quite accurate
insofar as it goes, and 2, which is bald, insulting, and pig-fuckingly
stupid. Only when provoked will an atheist say something similarly
nasty, such as "They like having an imaginary friend in the universe."
But it illustrates the character of the rhetoric quite well. Blend factual
statements and reasoning with prevarication and bald assertion.
Any reason therefore serves the same purpose as a carnival
barker's top had.
Mark K. Bilbo
> I have copied this and posted it. So sue me. It seems to be very
> logical, except for the last sentence. attacking Christianity is a fun
> sport only because Christianity is ridiculous prima facie, and an
> historical anachronism.
Hm... logical?
> Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
> god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
> any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is
> given to atheism, it is a negative position.
Well, okay. But, so what? Large parts of *identity are "negative." I am
not you, you are not me. I am not my father. I am not my mother. What's
the first word we all start using with abandon? It's "no." The first
stirrings of an "I" that is separate from "you."
Freedom itself is defined largely in negative terms. Read the Bill of
Rights. What is it? A list of "nots." Congress may not... the government
cannot... you do not have to... you cannot be made to...
Even Judeo-Christianity begins with "not." Thou shalt not... And what *is
that? It's identity. You are NOT the people around you and you will NOT
behave like them.
"Not" is, heh, not to dismissed so lightly. <g>
Funny thing, that. They start off with a very, very cultural thing of
being negative about the negative. US American culture has a near
obsession with not being negative. You're supposed to be all positive and
"proactive" and don't use the subjunctive! Yet what is one of the
fundamentals of christianity? To be "in the world but NOT of it." Hm.
Subtle double standard there I suspect.
> In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity
> of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist
> circles; at least, none that I have heard.... Therefore, since there are
> no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no proofs that there is no
> God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Strawman of course. A stupid one at that. But the usual crap.
And at this point, I'm no longer going to blame it on simple ignorance.
They're trying to change the meaning of "atheist" *deliberately to make
the position indefensible. It's dishonesty. There's plenty of material out
there by atheists on what "atheism" really is. They could read it. May
have read it but chose to be deceptive anyway.
> In other words, it is possible that there is no God. But, stating that
> something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is
> wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an
> ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually
> defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a
> possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on
> nothing more than it being a logical option is not sufficient grounds
> for atheists to claim viability. They must come up with more than "It
> is possible," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on
> Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start
> defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.
THIS is incoherent. An attempt to turn the entire debate on its head and
make the unlikely and unsubstantiated seem the default.
THEY have made the assertion something exists. THEY have the burden of
evidence. The better "analogy" is that THEY have decided--sans any
evidence at all--that there really, really, REALLY is an "ice cream
factory on Jupiter" and lash out at those of us that expect them to show
evidence such a thing exists. Or *could exist.
It is, actually, their position that is based on the flimsiest of
"possible." A form of "god of the gaps." How many times have we seen
theists come here to try to get people to admit it's "possible" their god
exists as if that establishes some useful foundation for belief?
By this reasoning, CHRISTIANITY is the one that is not "viable."
> Since atheism cannot be proven...
Sigh. Yes it can. I "prove" all the time I don't believe in gods.
They still refuse to accept that atheism is an identity. That it's a
statement about belief. As in "I don't believe that." There's no "proof"
needed. I live day in and day out without any belief in any gods. Hence, I
am a- (without) theism (belief in gods).
Simple.
> Therefore, since there could be evidences presented in the future, the
> atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so
> far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This
> would make the atheist an agnostic since at best the atheist can only
> be skeptical of God's existence.
Oh drivel. This person understands neither atheism nor agnosticism.
Now we get to the plain old ad hominem...
> This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
> Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
> challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
> vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
> themselves.
Yawn.
Atheists "attack" christianity for all kinds of reasons. If, that is, they
do at all. A lot of atheists just don't *bother. But those who *do bother
are responding *to *attack.
I get tired of this idea that christianity can invade every corner of
society, lobby for legislation to enforce it's precepts, demand special
rights over other belief systems and over non-belief, and even just come
to my door and bug the crap out of me Saturday morning but we're all just
supposed to roll over. That making *any comment in response is to "attack."
Sheesh.
They drew first blood.
And, finally, of course we get to the lame thing that everybody "really"
has a "god." It's just a matter of which one.
Talk about diluting the meaning of the word "god" to the point of utter
uselessness. It reduces to a kind of "thing you like" and loses any real
meaning...
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:juOdnQ6jPJH...@io.com...
>>
>> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
>> news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
>> > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>> > reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
>> you
>> > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
>> > paragraphs).
>> >
>> > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>> >
>> > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
> we
>> > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>>
>> The theist says "There's a god."
>> The atheist says "I don't believe you."
>>
>> That's all.
>>
>> Denis Loubet
>> dlo...@io.com
>> http://www.io.com/~dloubet
>>
>>
> As should be the atheists reply to someone who says aboslutely there is no
> God.
Pay attention little troll. Read his post again. Several times in fact...
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
> It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
> exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that space
> just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he has told
> us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
That's just speculation. There is no evidence for it.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Dont think of being as a thing, think of being as ultimate reality.
> Does the above definition help? I doubt it!
So you *do realize you don't make any sense!
Mark K. Bilbo
>
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> news:p9esnvsdb1tuf366n...@Pern.rk...
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com>
>> posted in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
> no
>> >potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
> not
>> >being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being
> which
>> >participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
>>
>> Rhetoric. Have objective evidence
>
> He asked for a definition!! I gave it, lets go from there.
If, someday, your "definition" parses maybe we could.
Until then...
John Baker
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
you
> would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> paragraphs).
And it commits more logical fallacies than you can shake two sticks at in
those six paragraphs. But that's largely irrelevant, since the burden of
proof isn't on atheists. Theists make the positive claim, i.e. "God exists."
Atheists, most of us anyway, simply say, "We don't believe you. Where's your
evidence?" We have nothing to prove. You do.
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Proof is for liquor and mathematics. The best you can do in the real world
is evidence. When it comes to the existence of gods, the Christian one or
anyone else's, there simply isn't any. I know, many Christians *believe*
they have evidence, but they don't really. They have a personal conviction
which they strongly believe is true, but which is unsupported by any sort of
testable empirical data. That isn't evidence.
>
> Thank you
>
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
one that cries out in the wilderness wrote:
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
> would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> paragraphs).
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>
> Thank you
>
Let's start at the top, and pick this apart a little at a time:
" Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not
exercise any belief or nonbeliever concerning God, etc. Which ever
flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position. "
Only in the same fashion that not believing in the toot fairy is a
negative position. Atheist simply means, "one without god".
" In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since
you can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. "
The writer answers to his own position in this short portion. You can
not prove a negative. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to
prove that a god, any god, does not exist. The burden of proof is on
the believer, making a claim to an existing god.
"Of course, that isn't to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer
some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are
invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in
the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there
is no God? Besides, if there were a proof of Gods non-existence, then
atheists would be continually using it. But we don't hear of any such
commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying God’s existence. The
atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it
is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs
for atheism’s truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the
atheist must hold his position by faith."
The easiest way is this, prove that there are no 40 foot green dragons
in the universe. Or, prove that there are not invisible pink unicorns
in the universe. You can't, so to accept that they exist is ludicrous.
Further more, there is a simple way to look at the existence of any
god, With all the religions in the world, they can't all be correct, but
they can all be wrong.
"Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and
negate any evidences presented for God’s existence in order to give
intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an
evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their
position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the
negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its
self-justification to self-proclaimed life."
And atheist does not need faith, since by default, the atheist does not
believe. Not due to faith, but most likely, due to a huge lack of
evidence offered by the believers to support their claim in gods. Since
believers can not produce any physical, testable, falsifiable,
verifiable evidence of any gods, anywhere, the atheist simply defaults
to no belief with out proof. This is not a difficult process to
understand. Think of all the things you don't believe in, then you'll
understand why the atheist does not believe.
"There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it is possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is
wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an
ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually
defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a
possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on
nothing more than it being a logical option is not sufficient grounds
for atheists to claim viability. They must come up with more than "It
is possible," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on
Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start
defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists."
This extended portion of miss understanding is common. However,
misguided.
There is no "chance" to it. The writters example of the ice cream
factory on Jupiter is exactly how an atheist views a believers claim
about a god or gods. They must come up with more then, "well I just
know it." befor the atheist will be convinced that any god is real.
Then there is the problem of which god is the right one.
First you must prove that there is a god, them prove that the god out
there is indeed your god.
" But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for
God’s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an
eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage.
Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God
does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is
intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there
are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say
there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all
evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can
only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient."
First, offer some evidence that there is a god, any god will do. So
far, that evidence is sorly lacking. Believers will constantly through
out the design of the universe, as evidence, totaly forgeting that the
designer would then also need a designer as well. They claim order is
proof of a god, until chaos is show to rule where order is claimed. As
humanities knowledge increses, the need for gods decreses further and
further into the relm of mythology and folktales. Where it belongs.
"Therefore, since there could be evidences presented in the future, the
atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so
far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This
would make the atheist an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be
skeptical of God’s existence."
And when such evidence is presented, than any intelligent atheist will
look at that evidence and alter their view accordingly.
However, what would the believer do should the UFO cults be correct, and
we are the result of alien experiments and our makers return to
"harvest" us in the near future? Thends to throw a big monkey wrench
into the god works.
"This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God’s existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
themselves."
The writer feels persecuted, but is wrong. Atheists have nothing
against the xtian god, or the muslim god, or the hindu gods, or the
jewish god, we reject all gods. Atheist also reject all forms of
conversion by the believers of those gods. Because they all hold one
thing in common, the belief that they are right, and everyone else is wrong.
We simply accecpt the concept that they are all wrong, because they all
can not be right. And since not a single one of them can provide
anymore evidence for their god then the others, well, which one is it.
You tell me. Which god is the real god?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@qwest.net
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
John Baker
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
>
> "Sentinel" <NOSPAMb...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:blklji$ddfur$1...@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
> > news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
I'm
> > > reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me
why
> > you
> > > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only
6
> > > paragraphs).
> > >
> > > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
> we
> > > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
> >
> just
> > about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes
thousands
> of
> > gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
>
> I agree.
>
> > The only questions that DO matter should be:
> >
> > Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
>
> It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important question
ever.
> Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to get to
the
> center of a tootsie pop".
Well, at least the tootsie pop question can be answered definitively. If
anyone wanted to bother to research it, that is <G>
>
> It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
> exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that space
> just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he has
told
> us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
He didn't by chance follow that up with "what I am" and an odd little
chuckle, did he? ;-)
Sorry, I really don't mean to be facetious, but we see at least a dozen
arguments from personal conviction every week in this group. A friend of
mine who's a believer in the paranormal (she's a dear, sweet person, bless
her, but not the most critical of thinkers...) once asked me how I explained
why so many people have paranormal experiences if there's no such thing. I
replied that there is no evidence and no reason to believe that people
actually *do* have paranormal experiences. However, there's plenty of
evidence that some people will *interpret* certain types of experiences as
"paranormal." It's the same with gods. There's no *objective* evidence at
all that any gods, including the Christian one, exist, but there are many
people who believe and who are predisposed to *interpret* certain things as
"signs" that God is real..
>
> I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of
faith
> and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
> evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
> heads.
And this would be different from current theist behavior how, exactly?
(sorry, couldn't resist. <G>)
Theists, or more specifically Christians, seem fond of asking us atheists
how we'd react if anyone ever came up with undeniable proof that God exists.
Well, to begin with, if such "proof" existed, it likely wouldn't need to be
"discovered." We'd have been aware of it long ago and there wouldn't be any
atheists. But that's not the point. Turnabout is fair play, as my grandma
used to say, so I have a question for the Christians. How would *you* react
if undeniable proof ever came to light that a god indeed existst, but
he/she/it isn't the one you believe in?
>A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you when
> they are not forced to.
Not forced to? From what I gather from talking to Christians and reading
your Bible, this god of yours loves to make rules, the more arbitrary the
better, and all sorts of nasty things await those who don't obey. Seems to
me that if you're a believer, you have only two choices. Plant your lips
firmly on the Holy Hiney, or suffer eternal torment. Sure sounds like force,
or at least coercion, to me.
>
> >
> > >>> Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims
should
> > start becoming very suspect...
>
> I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
You may disagree all you like, but that won't change the fact that there
isn't one shred of testable, empirical, *objective* evidence for the
existence of any gods, and without that, your beliefs, or mine, or anyone
else's, are simply that. Beliefs, not facts.
But all of that aside, I must say that as theists go, or at least as the
theists we usually see here in a.a go, you seem considerably more reasonable
than most. Hang around a while and get to know us. I'm not quite the
curmudgeon I can seem to be at times, and most of the regs here aren't bad
folks once you get past the religion thing. :-)
>
John Baker
the
> type of evidence you seek. Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
> world view, only undeniability is.
And god belief fails on both counts.
>
>
MarkA
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
> you would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only
> 6 paragraphs).
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>
> Thank you
---------------> D E A D H O R S E <---------------------
BEAT BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK KICK BEAT.....
Get the picture?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:05:46 +0000, one that cries out in the wilderness wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
>> you would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only
>> 6 paragraphs).
>>
>> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>>
>> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
>> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>>
>> Thank you
>
>
>---------------> D E A D H O R S E <---------------------
>
>BEAT BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK KICK BEAT.....
>
>Get the picture?
Probably not. They don't listen.
MarkA
>
> "*Nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote in message
> news:nemo0037-0F561D...@news04.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com>,
>> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site
>> > I'm reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to
>> > me why
> you
>> > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only
>> > 6 paragraphs).
>> >
>> > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>> >
>> I see this:
>> "In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
>> validity of atheism. "
>>
>> What exactly would be the point in discussing the "validity" of
>> skepticism about myths?
>>
>> > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
> we
>> > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>> >
>> There's no need to support a negative position. Those who make a
>> positive claim need to provide supporting evidence. If you want me to
>> believe in a "god" then you have to define it logically and provide
>> evidence of its existence. All I have to do is decide whether your
>> definition is logical, and whether your evidence is believable.
>>
>> Is that really so hard to understand?
>
> You're right, there is no need to to support a negative position. It is
> living in denial of all other truth claims. The problem is, all these
> claims may be true. If they are true and you choose to live in denial,
> who's the fool.
As has oft been said by greater minds than me, "It is better to be wrong
for the right reasons than to be right for the wrong ones."
The fool is someone who believes an implausible story with no compelling
evidence to justify that belief. Since any statement "may be true", do
you make it a policy to believe *everything* you hear? Or just those
things that agree with whatever you already believe?
Eric Pepke
> > >>> Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims should
> > start becoming very suspect...
>
> I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
You can disagree as much as you like, as long as you understand that we
think there is none.
You can even argue your evidence or what you think to be evidence. This is
not offensive.
Eric Pepke
> As should be the atheists reply to someone who says aboslutely there is no
> God.
Second stage warning.
You started off asking questions. That's fine. If you want to present
your evidence for the existence of god, that's fine, too.
Now you've crossed the line into Stage 2. You're telling atheists
what they should believe with cute, bald little one-liners, which
strongly suggest that you think you've got it all figured out and
were only pretending to ask questions. But you still have the
benefit of doubt.
It is entirely up to you whether you make the transition into Stage 3,
in which you choose to be merely a poster boy for dipshit theists
who come into alt.atheism to proselytize but who have been taught to
pretend to be polite at first. Which behavior I've never understood,
because it does *nothing* but harden our hearts against theists.
The choice is yours.
Letao
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having no
> potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual not
> being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being which
> participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
Sounds like a bastardized description of emergence intentionally warped
and colloquialized to fit an infantile need to avoid uncertainty.
George Dance
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:56:46 +0000, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
>
snip
> Oh drivel. This person understands neither atheism nor agnosticism.
>
> Now we get to the plain old ad hominem...
>
> > This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
> > Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
> > challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
> > vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
> > themselves.
Obviously he doesn't understand atheism at all. "Only one god in it:
themselves," indeed!
What about Satan? 8)
snip
Elf M. Sternberg
> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
> would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> paragraphs).
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
First, the CARM article is correct insofar as _atheism_ may be a
negative position. But if atheism is true, so must be naturalism: if
there is no God, then the universe is running essentially without even
the possibility of divine intervention. Our little corner is running in
a regular fashion rather than an ordered one.
This is a *positive* claim which CARM would like to ignore.
The dirty little secret of theism is that theists act as if the
atheologically positive claim is true under all circumstances that
materially matter. They buckle their seatbelts, insure their houses,
and force their kids to wear helmets while bicycling because as far as
their concerned, a god isn't really going to help them. As many people
get better under the care of a secular therapist as do under a minister;
prayer has no discernable outcome on the recovery of the ill; the much
touted benefits of theism are wholly natural in nature and can be
acheived without the invocation of a supernatural element.
The only occasion where theism *positively claims* any benefit (or
any effect at all) to the human being that is not explicable in wholly
natural terms is an that which, not only can we not examine, we cannot
even be sure it happens: the supposed persistence of the conscious self
after all discernable biological life has ceased.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Proud to be an Extinctionist
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
With the advance of biogenetics, it is not so much that we are losing
our dignity and freedom but that we realise we never had them in the
first place. - Slavoj Zizek
Elf M. Sternberg
>> > The theist says "There's a god."
>> > The atheist says "I don't believe you."
>> As should be the atheists reply to someone who says aboslutely there is no
>> God.
> Not entirely. That would be the answer of an agnostic.
Not entirely true. The answer of the agnostic is "it's
impossible to know one way or the other." The problem with the
agnostic's claim is that phrase, "It is impossible to know" is itself a
kind of knowledge. The whole position is contradictory.
Elf
Sarotherodon
"Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:m3he2o8...@drizzle.com...
Maybe you can explain this further, not sure I understand. I see how making
a claim that "no knowledge is possible" is contradictory, but how is a claim
about a specific thing contradictory? That's how it seems to me, maybe I'm
misunderstanding your point.
stoney
wilderness" <i.m.@peace>, Message ID:
<3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
>would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
>paragraphs).
>
>http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
>It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
>can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
A lack of theism is a position the individual holds. Such a position is
a passive one and does not pertain to anyone else. Such a position is
not accepting what *theists* assert.
That said, the statement "God does not exist" can be made and supported
if one cared enough about it to do so.
If the theist follows, iirc, Matt 6:5 and does not act like a Pharisee
and keeps it a private matter or indicates such only pertains to
him/herself then there is nothing for the theist to provide objective
supporting evidence for. However, if such is projected into the outside
world and those outside are supposed to pay attention to said theism
then providing concise definitions and objective supporting evidence
does come into play.
How sadly common it is for theists to be so unrepentantly dishonest and
insecure as to try to shift their burden onto others. And yet, these
are the folks that (generally) portray themselves as "pillars of
morality(tm)."
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
stoney
wilderness" <i.m.@peace>, Message ID:
>
>"Sentinel" <NOSPAMb...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>news:blklji$ddfur$1...@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
>> news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
>> > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>> > reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
>> you
>> > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
>> > paragraphs).
>> >
>> > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>> >
>> > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
>we
>> > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>>
>> Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the existence of
>just
>> about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes thousands
>of
>> gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
>
>I agree.
>
>> The only questions that DO matter should be:
>>
>> Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
>
>It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important question ever.
>Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to get to the
>center of a tootsie pop".
I disagree. The question about the tootsie pop is of utmost importance
in comparison.
>It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God certainly
>exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't think that space
>just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he has told
>us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
Proper medication does wonders for such.
However, If the universe didn't create itself (and why not?) then "God"
certainly couldn't create itself.
Further, the g-o-d letter string is effectively undefined. What is put
forth as a definition; begs the question, handwaves furiously, and
provides zero information. There is nothing to look for or consider.
There is no evidence the universe was manufactured.
The 'creator' is nothing more than broken logic to try to avoid the
case of ever recursive 'creators.'
>I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of faith
>and you're looking for irrefutable proof.
Bullshit. It's quite dishonest to project your position onto others.
> If God gave us irrefutable
>evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
>heads. A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you when
>they are not forced to.
According to xtian doctrine, humans *are* a bunch of actors hitting
their marks and spouting their lines in a pointless play scripted eons
ago.
>> >>> Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims should
>> start becoming very suspect...
>
>I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
Disagree all you like. The persons statement is accurate.
Feel free to address the points raised in this post. Furious
handwaving, unsupported assertions, empty threats, argument from
ignorance, argument from 'authority,' and other logical fallacies do
not qualify as a response and will be guffawed at. Fair warning.
stoney
Message ID: <vnshmj9...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>news:alurnvcraejlngavb...@4ax.com...
>> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
>no
>> >potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
>not
>> >being part of the space time universe.
>>
>> Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
>>
>> >The source of all finite being which
>> >participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
>>
>> If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
>> infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
>
>God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
>can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
>existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
>in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
So you constantly and pathetically drool.
Sad.
stoney
Message ID: <vnshol1...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:p9esnvsdb1tuf366n...@Pern.rk...
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com>
>> posted in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
>no
>> >potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
>not
>> >being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being
>which
>> >participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
>>
>> Rhetoric. Have objective evidence
>
>He asked for a definition!! I gave it, lets go from there.
Congradulations on once again showing your vast ignorance.
stoney
<iskan...@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.04....@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
Randy hasn't learned the difference between a definition verses furious
handwaving.
stoney
Message ID: <x_Afb.91428$xx4.14...@twister.neo.rr.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
There isn't a coherant definition for the key letter string (g-o-d).
The "Bible" flat indicates "God" does not exist.
>> I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap of
>faith
>> and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us irrefutable
>> evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of robots noding our
>> heads.
>
>And this would be different from current theist behavior how, exactly?
>(sorry, couldn't resist. <G>)
>
>Theists, or more specifically Christians, seem fond of asking us atheists
>how we'd react if anyone ever came up with undeniable proof that God exists.
>Well, to begin with, if such "proof" existed, it likely wouldn't need to be
>"discovered." We'd have been aware of it long ago and there wouldn't be any
>atheists. But that's not the point. Turnabout is fair play, as my grandma
>used to say, so I have a question for the Christians. How would *you* react
>if undeniable proof ever came to light that a god indeed existst, but
>he/she/it isn't the one you believe in?
/cue fouled underwear.
>>A great test of true love is to see if someone still loves you when
>> they are not forced to.
>
>Not forced to? From what I gather from talking to Christians and reading
>your Bible, this god of yours loves to make rules, the more arbitrary the
>better, and all sorts of nasty things await those who don't obey. Seems to
>me that if you're a believer, you have only two choices. Plant your lips
>firmly on the Holy Hiney, or suffer eternal torment. Sure sounds like force,
>or at least coercion, to me.
Even with a top notch felching and rim job eternal torment would, by
definition, be 'good.' The story of Job indicates "God" lacks
character.
>> > >>> Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such claims
>should
>> > start becoming very suspect...
>>
>> I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
>
>You may disagree all you like, but that won't change the fact that there
>isn't one shred of testable, empirical, *objective* evidence for the
>existence of any gods, and without that, your beliefs, or mine, or anyone
>else's, are simply that. Beliefs, not facts.
Yep. As long as the person does not project their superstition onto
others they don't have to provide concise definitions and objective
supporting evidence as it is a personal matter/stance.
>But all of that aside, I must say that as theists go, or at least as the
>theists we usually see here in a.a go, you seem considerably more reasonable
>than most. Hang around a while and get to know us. I'm not quite the
>curmudgeon I can seem to be at times, and most of the regs here aren't bad
>folks once you get past the religion thing. :-)
People here are generally willing to explore concepts and the
ramifications and reprecussions involved in a fictional world (which is
the world of theism). Theists generally aren't happy
about it though... :)
stoney
wilderness" <i.m.@peace>, Message ID:
<3f7de146$0$35836$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:juOdnQ6jPJH...@io.com...
>>
>> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
>> news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
>> > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>> > reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
>> you
>> > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
>> > paragraphs).
>> >
>> > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>> >
>> > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
>we
>> > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>>
>> The theist says "There's a god."
>> The atheist says "I don't believe you."
>>
>> That's all.
>>
>> Denis Loubet
>> dlo...@io.com
>> http://www.io.com/~dloubet
>>
>>
>As should be the atheists reply to someone who says aboslutely there is no
>God.
The statement can be made and supported if one cared enough about it to
make the statement. Such is along the lines as "There's no Santa Claus,
Easter Bunny, etc.."
stoney
Message ID: <vnrsmj9...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"*Nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote in message
>news:nemo0037-0F561D...@news04.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com>,
>> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>> > reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
>you
>> > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
>> > paragraphs).
>> >
>> > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>> >
>> I see this:
>> "In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
>> validity of atheism. "
>>
>> What exactly would be the point in discussing the "validity" of
>> skepticism about myths?
>>
>> > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
>we
>> > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>> >
>> There's no need to support a negative position. Those who make a
>> positive claim need to provide supporting evidence. If you want me to
>> believe in a "god" then you have to define it logically and provide
>> evidence of its existence. All I have to do is decide whether your
>> definition is logical, and whether your evidence is believable.
>>
>> Is that really so hard to understand?
>
>You're right, there is no need to to support a negative position. It is
>living in denial of all other truth claims. The problem is, all these claims
>may be true. If they are true and you choose to live in denial, who's the
>fool.
>
You, as you constantly demonstrate.
stoney
Message ID: <vnru2d5...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>I would never want you to believe without evidence. The problem is with the
>type of evidence you seek. Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
>world view, only undeniability is.
>
Well, it's patently undeniable that you're a ignorant fool.
stoney
<ni...@webmaster.com>, Message ID: <G0sfb.13312$Rd4.10904@fed1read07>
wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
>news:vnru2d5...@corp.supernews.com...
>> I would never want you to believe without evidence. The problem is with
>the
>> type of evidence you seek. Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
>> world view, only undeniability is.
>
> Do you actually *believe* this stuff, or are you just grasping at
>straws, in an attempt to salvage your sinking position?
But instead of a life preserver Randy continually grabs the biggest
anchor he can find.
stoney
<insensit...@hotmail.com>, Message ID:
<Hxmfb.3893$d1....@nntpserver.swip.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
>It's better to miss one valid target too many than hit one invalid
>target too many. Anyway, how would you support the claims that god
>exist?
With furious handwaving, arrogant assertions and every logical fallacy
and contradiction under the sun. Randy's ignorance is legion.
stoney
<iskan...@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.03...@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:05:46 -0400, one that cries out in the wilderness
>wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>> reading seems to peg atheism.
>
>Troll.
Of course, but they can be foils for amusement purposes.
stoney
<iskan...@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.04....@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
(snip)
>Now we get to the plain old ad hominem...
and unrepentant bearing of false witness.
>> This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
>> Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
>> challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
>> vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
>> themselves.
>
>Yawn.
(eyes glaze over)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>Atheists "attack" christianity for all kinds of reasons. If, that is, they
>do at all. A lot of atheists just don't *bother. But those who *do bother
>are responding *to *attack.
>
>I get tired of this idea that christianity can invade every corner of
>society, lobby for legislation to enforce it's precepts, demand special
>rights over other belief systems and over non-belief, and even just come
>to my door and bug the crap out of me Saturday morning but we're all just
>supposed to roll over. That making *any comment in response is to "attack."
>
>Sheesh.
>
>They drew first blood.
>
>And, finally, of course we get to the lame thing that everybody "really"
>has a "god." It's just a matter of which one.
>
>Talk about diluting the meaning of the word "god" to the point of utter
>uselessness. It reduces to a kind of "thing you like" and loses any real
>meaning...
G-o-d never had any meaning in the first place.
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 07:16:04 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <iskan...@hoo.com>, Message ID:
> <pan.2003.10.04....@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:04:41 -0700, Randy Story wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:p9esnvsdb1tuf366n...@Pern.rk...
>>>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com>
>>>> posted in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>> >That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
>>> no
>>>> >potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
>>> not
>>>> >being part of the space time universe.The source of all finite being
>>> which
>>>> >participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
>>>>
>>>> Rhetoric. Have objective evidence
>>>
>>> He asked for a definition!! I gave it, lets go from there.
>>
>>If, someday, your "definition" parses maybe we could.
>>
>>Until then...
>
> Randy hasn't learned the difference between a definition verses furious
> handwaving.
But nice breeze isn't it?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
Thomas P.
That is always the way I felt about agnosticism. I also figure that
it should be glaringly obvious that there was a god, if such a thing
existed especially as defined by Christians. That it isn't obvious
is, in my opinion, a strong mark against it.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
johac
<nemo0037-DDFBFA...@news04.east.earthlink.net>,
*Nemo* <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
> In article <jhachm-741874....@central.giganews.com>,
> johac <jha...@remove.ixpres.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <vnru2d5...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I would never want you to believe without evidence. The problem is with
> > > the
> > > type of evidence you seek. Empiricism is not the correct truth test for a
> > > world view, only undeniability is.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > As I write this, there is an invisible, undetectable UFO circling
> > above your house. Go ahead. Deny it. Prove that it doesn't exist.
> > Prove that it is impossible. You can't.
> >
> > On the other hand, unless I or someone else gives you clear,
> > demonstrable, verifiable, objective evidence that there is one, why
> > should you believe me?
> >
> > The reasons that you give will be the same as the ones for why I
> > don't believe in gods.
>
> Dude! You forgot to offer *empirical* evidence. Randy doesn't buy that
> shit, you know...
Jeez! If the little green men landed, ran up and kicked Randy in the
ass, and cussed him out, he'd still have to check his bible to see
whether or not he should believe it really happened.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
Sentinel
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in bericht
news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
you
> would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> paragraphs).
>
> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
Or, maybe the question should be "is theism viable?"
My 2 cents: no!
Sentinel
"Sarotherodon" <SPAMFREE@.rr.com> schreef in bericht
news:eUJfb.16$uA...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Saying "we cannot know either way" in itself suggests we have a definite
answer (that answer being "we don't know"). But to know that, to make that
conclusion, we have to "know" things in order to be able to make such a
statement.
Heh. I'm not sure this makes any sense to you, but I guess what I'm trying
to say is, saying "we cannot know" is in itself dogmatic, a cop-out if you
will.
Anyone?
John Hattan
>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>news:alurnvcraejlngavb...@4ax.com...
>> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant having
>no
>> >potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being, purely spiritual
>not
>> >being part of the space time universe.
>>
>> Okay, you've made it clear what your god is not.
>>
>> >The source of all finite being which
>> >participate in existence but are not part of infinite being.
>>
>> If something is not part of an infinite being, then that being is not
>> infinite by definition because there is something not part of it.
>
>God is infinite in the type of existence he has, that does not mean that God
>can not create something that has a different type of existence. Our
>existence is finite, his is infinite. He is the source in that he holds us
>in existence but we are not part of his being or we would be Pantheists.
Ahh, I see. He's infinite as long as you redefine "infinite" to mean
"not infinite".
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:40:16 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <iskan...@hoo.com>, Message ID:
> <pan.2003.10.03...@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:05:46 -0400, one that cries out in the wilderness
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>>> reading seems to peg atheism.
>>
>>Troll.
>
> Of course, but they can be foils for amusement purposes.
Not much of the current crop. Mostly just stinkers. Why, we're even having
to resort to Randy reruns this season...
George Dance
>
> >> > The theist says "There's a god."
> >> > The atheist says "I don't believe you."
>
> >> As should be the atheists reply to someone who says aboslutely there is no
> >> God.
>
> > Not entirely. That would be the answer of an agnostic.
>
> Not entirely true. The answer of the agnostic is "it's
> impossible to know one way or the other."
Which, if true, would make Huxley himself not an agnostic, as he did
not claim any such thing:
<quote>
The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems
the
investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary
according
to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual
Agnostic. I
do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable."2 What I am
sure
about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and
which,
so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether
these
things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters
which is
beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as
to the
probabilities of the case. Relatively to myself, I am quite sure that
the
region of uncertainty-the nebulous country in which words play the
part of
realities [312]-is far more extensive than I could wish.
</quote> http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
> The problem with the
> agnostic's claim is that phrase, "It is impossible to know" is itself a
> kind of knowledge. The whole position is contradictory.
> Elf
I don't know what a bat thinks, either. But that's claiming
knowledge, too, so this must be 'contradictory' as well. Therefore I
must know what a bat thinks.
Sarotherodon
Yes, but "we don't know" makes a claim about our knowledge, not about
whether or not gods exist.
But to know that, to make that
> conclusion, we have to "know" things in order to be able to make such a
> statement.
We do have to know things, but again, I only see that working if our claim
is for some sort of global skepticism, not skepticism about a particular
claim.
The things that we know may simply be the our own limitations in perceiving
things.
>
> Heh. I'm not sure this makes any sense to you, but I guess what I'm
trying
> to say is, saying "we cannot know" is in itself dogmatic, a cop-out if you
> will.
>
> Anyone?
I agree, saying we don't/cannot know doesn't help a bit. A lot of the
problem comes down to what a person's definition of knowledge is.
If the standard for knowledge is absolute logical proof, then we really
couldn't have any knowledge based on empirical evidence at all.
I also notice that this view is frequently used when a strong theist is
confronted with real evidecne and argument about how weak their position is.
They retreat into "we can't know" as an alternative to "it is not reasonable
to believe in light of the evidence."
George Dance
Yes, to conclude that one thing is unknowable, we have to assume we
know other things. For example, in order to conclude that I can't
know what's going on in my next-door neighbour's apartment when I'm
sitting here, I have to assume that I do know that I can't see, or
hear, or otherwise sense anything going on in that apartment when I'm
sitting here. But how is that contradictory?
Dr DuFunny
> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> writes:
>
> > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
you
> > would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
> > paragraphs).
>
> > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
> > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than
we
> > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>
> negative position. But if atheism is true, so must be naturalism: if
> there is no God, then the universe is running essentially without even
> the possibility of divine intervention. Our little corner is running in
> a regular fashion rather than an ordered one.
>
> This is a *positive* claim which CARM would like to ignore.
>
> The dirty little secret of theism is that theists act as if the
> atheologically positive claim is true under all circumstances that
> materially matter. They buckle their seatbelts, insure their houses,
> and force their kids to wear helmets while bicycling because as far as
> their concerned, a god isn't really going to help them. As many people
> get better under the care of a secular therapist as do under a minister;
> prayer has no discernable outcome on the recovery of the ill; the much
> touted benefits of theism are wholly natural in nature and can be
> acheived without the invocation of a supernatural element.
Except that for instance, the insurance industry is part of God's plan which
is the bedrock of capitalism, since the proceeds are invested in the stock
market, helping the world hegemony of Christendom. Etc.
>
> The only occasion where theism *positively claims* any benefit (or
> any effect at all) to the human being that is not explicable in wholly
> natural terms is an that which, not only can we not examine, we cannot
> even be sure it happens: the supposed persistence of the conscious self
> after all discernable biological life has ceased.
>
There were many religious supernatural phenomona explainable by way of mass
hysteria. Including resurrection of the dead and other miracles witnessed
by those who chose to be part of a group delusion.
> Elf
>
> --
> Elf M. Sternberg, Proud to be an Extinctionist
> http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
>
> With the advance of biogenetics, it is not so much that we are losing
> our dignity and freedom but that we realise we never had them in the
> first place. - Slavoj Zizek
>
Thomas P.
wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote:
>I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why you
>would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only 6
>paragraphs).
>
>http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>
>It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
>can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>
>Thank you
You present a concept of some divine being. I tell you that I can see
no reason to accept your concept. What is it that I have to prove?
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:05:46 +0000, one that cries out in the wilderness wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this site I'm
>> reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain to me why
>> you would disagree with what is said at the following website. (It's only
>> 6 paragraphs).
>>
>> http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>>
>> It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any more than we
>> can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>>
>> Thank you
>
>
> ---------------> D E A D H O R S E <---------------------
>
> BEAT BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK KICK BEAT.....
>
> Get the picture?
Deceased equine flagellation.
(Hm... Mary Poppins?)
Liz
<iskan...@hoo.com> in news message
<pan.2003.10.05....@eac.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:55:46 +0000, MarkA wrote:
>
[-----]
>>
>> ---------------> D E A D H O R S E <---------------------
>>
>> BEAT BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK KICK BEAT.....
>>
>> Get the picture?
>
>Deceased equine flagellation.
>
>(Hm... Mary Poppins?)
Sing along with Liz: (you know the tune)
Hum-diddle-diddle-diddle-hum-diddle-i
Hum-diddle-diddle-diddle-hum-diddle-i
Necrohippoflagellation, theists love to use it.
Even though the horse has died, they will still abuse it.
If they beat it long enough, they think you must enthuse it.
Necrohippoflagellation, theists can't refuse it.
(Repeat faster)
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
>
> "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <ni...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
> news:aAlfb.12373$Rd4.10650@fed1read07...
>>
>> "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
>> news:3f7ddd60$0$35831$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
>> >
>> > "Sentinel" <NOSPAMb...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>> > news:blklji$ddfur$1...@ID-175962.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> > >
>> > > "one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> schreef in
>> > > bericht news:3f7dd476$0$35842$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
>> > > > I'm trying to be considerate of the atheist's position but this
>> > > > site
>> I'm
>> > > > reading seems to peg atheism. Would an atheist please explain
>> > > > to me
>> why
>> > > you
>> > > > would disagree with what is said at the following website.
>> > > > (It's
> only
>> 6
>> > > > paragraphs).
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
>> > > >
>> > > > It seems to me that you can't prove that atheism is true any
>> > > > more
> than
>> > we
>> > > > can prove that God exists. If I'm wrong, please explain.
>> > >
>> > > Try looking at it from another POV. You can't disprove the
>> > > existence
> of
>> > just
>> > > about any creature mankind ever came up with; the list includes
>> thousands
>> > of
>> > > gods, demons, ghosts, leprechauns, etc etc ad nauseam.
>> >
>> > I agree.
>> >
>> > > The only questions that DO matter should be:
>> > >
>> > > Is there any evidence of any god(s) out there?
>> >
>> > It would seem to me that this question is the MOST important
>> > question
>> ever.
>> > Certainly a better question than, "how many licks does it take to
>> > get to
>> the
>> > center of a tootsie pop".
>> >
>> > It seems evident to me when I open my eyes everyday that God
>> > certainly exists. Cyberspace just didn't create itself and I don't
>> > think that
> space
>> > just created itself either. I cannot explain how God exists. All he
>> > has
>> told
>> > us is that, "I am." If I could apprehend that, I'd be God.
>>
>> Arguing from awe is a logical fallacy. The arguments that have to
>> do
>> with the "beginning" -- there are different variations -- have been
>> thorougly refuted. See George H. Smith's book, "Atheism: The Case
>> Against God."
>>
>> And for the record, God hasn't told us anything. All we have is
> stories
>> and hearsay, corrected, modified and updated through the last few
>> thousand years (depending on your variety of God), which each
>> different sect seems
> to
>> interpret differently.
>>
>> > I can also understand your position. It certainly does take a leap
>> > of
>> faith
>> > and you're looking for irrefutable proof. If God gave us
>> > irrefutable evidence that he was God we would just be a bunch of
>> > robots noding our heads. A great test of true love is to see if
>> > someone still loves you
> when
>> > they are not forced to.
>>
>> If you loved someone, who was not forced to love you back, would
>> you
>> then proceed to punish them for not doing so?
>>
>> > > >>> Since there appears to be none, the sources for any such
>> > > >>> claims
>> should
>> > > start becoming very suspect...
>> >
>> > I would have to disagree very strongly that there is "none".
>>
>> Really? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all. But remember, a
>> prerequisite for proving evidence for God is proving a coherent,
>> logical definition for God first. After all, you can't provide
>> evidence for something that is not clearly defined.
>
>
>
> That which is unlimited, uncomposed, not temporal, not dependant
> having no potential to not exist and therefore a necessary being,
> purely spiritual not being part of the space time universe.The source
> of all finite being which participate in existence but are not part of
> infinite being.
Meaningless drool. Try again.
Llanzlan.
<SNIP>
>
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:33:26 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <iskan...@hoo.com> in news message
> <pan.2003.10.05....@eac.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:55:46 +0000, MarkA wrote:
>>
>
> [-----]
>>>
>>> ---------------> D E A D H O R S E <---------------------
>>>
>>> BEAT BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK KICK BEAT.....
>>>
>>> Get the picture?
>>
>>Deceased equine flagellation.
>>
>>(Hm... Mary Poppins?)
>
> Sing along with Liz: (you know the tune)
>
> Hum-diddle-diddle-diddle-hum-diddle-i
> Hum-diddle-diddle-diddle-hum-diddle-i
>
> Necrohippoflagellation, theists love to use it.
> Even though the horse has died, they will still abuse it.
> If they beat it long enough, they think you must enthuse it.
> Necrohippoflagellation, theists can't refuse it.
>
> (Repeat faster)
I knew somebody had been there before. <G>
Liz
>On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:34:19 +0000, Liz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:33:26 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
>> <iskan...@hoo.com> in news message
>> <pan.2003.10.05....@eac.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:55:46 +0000, MarkA wrote:
>>>
>>
>> [-----]
>>>>
>>>> ---------------> D E A D H O R S E <---------------------
>>>>
>>>> BEAT BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK BEAT BEAT BEAT KICK KICK BEAT.....
>>>>
>>>> Get the picture?
>>>
>>>Deceased equine flagellation.
>>>
>>>(Hm... Mary Poppins?)
>>
>> Sing along with Liz: (you know the tune)
>>
>> Hum-diddle-diddle-diddle-hum-diddle-i
>> Hum-diddle-diddle-diddle-hum-diddle-i
>>
>> Necrohippoflagellation, theists love to use it.
>> Even though the horse has died, they will still abuse it.
>> If they beat it long enough, they think you must enthuse it.
>> Necrohippoflagellation, theists can't refuse it.
>>
>> (Repeat faster)
>
>I knew somebody had been there before. <G>
You have a good memory. That was 4 1/2 years ago.