The truth about Atheism

[Chuck]

It is quite fascinating how atheists precariously champion their
worldview to be culmination of one’s own metaphysical journey; the
zenith of, and inevitable endpoint to, one’s intellectual development
with regard to theological issues. The adage usually goes something
like this: “I was once a believer, but then I started thinking
critically and recognized that there is no evidence that God exists.”
By contrast, theists are viewed as credulous fools, so weak that they
are willing to waste the one life that they get on incredible
superstitions. As such, the idea that someone could sensibly abandon
atheism for theism seems unfathomable.
But in reality, what’s really going on here is that a small minority
of the world’s population, after failing to progress their knowledge
of theology beyond the “crayon Christianity” that they learned in
Sunday School or Catechism, never moved beyond the rebellious stage of
their adolescent life where authority is bad, truth is illusory,
freedom is unlimited, etc. The problem was further compounded when
authors and publishers exploited this market by releasing
unsophisticated garbage such as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great,
The End of Faith, etc. Now the atheists were given mainstream voices
and the sad result consisted of atheists on message boards or in chat
rooms regurgitating the same tripe, almost verbatim; “Atheism is a
lack of belief in God!”, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence!”, “If everything needs a creator, then who created God?!”,
and so on.
Of course, to those with more than just a passing interest in actual
philosophy or theology, these arguments are laughable. However,
amusement soon turns to frustration because no matter how many times
atheists are corrected, they fail to advance their level of
discourse. After a while, theists get tired of forgetting what year
it is and decide to not even bother, to which the atheists respond by
pretending that they’ve scored some sort of victory.
So here’s the reality: Atheism is just wishful thinking. The main
reason it has adherents is that it allows for humans to live life
according to their own rules, and does so presumptuously under the
auspices of natural science, a field which they have adopted as their
measuring stick for the real so as to propagate the illusion that
their views are more “scientific“. Even the intelligent atheists such
as Quentin Smith or Bertrand Russell, to whom I would be remiss to
overlook, share this in common with the layman atheists (or
“latheists”, perhaps), which inevitably led them to develop their
minds for all the wrong reasons. In essence, despite the fact that
atheism cannot survive philosophical scrutiny, people gravitate
towards it because of what it offers them in this lifetime. That’s
all there is to it.
Those who have advanced beyond that adolescent stage, you know what
I’m talking about. But to those who are as I’ve described, I fully
anticipate some long-winded reply, isolating each line of this post
(thereby taking it out of its proper context) and responding to it
with an entire paragraph full of nonsense.

[Simon Ewins]

Wow, I always wondered what the truth was but I never would have guessed that Chuck would have it.

But, since I didn't see it in the text I must ask, what is it, then?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Musique.

http://atw.koolhost.com/music.htm

http://www.facebook.com/simon.ewins

http://reverbnation.com/simonewins

http://youtube.com/sjewins

[Gokudomatic]

If God Delusion is garbage, then we have to call Bible pure crap.

[Trance Gemini]

Hi Chuck

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Chuck <chuck...@comcast.net> wrote:

       It is quite fascinating how atheists precariously champion their
worldview

There is no such thing as an atheist "worldview". We simply lack a belief in gods.

Atheists have other beliefs but they are not necessarily the same beliefs.

For example, some atheists are supernaturalists who don't believe in gods but do believe in spirits or hold dualist beliefs like karma.

Other atheists are naturalists and materialists.
 

to be culmination of one’s own metaphysical journey; the
zenith of, and inevitable endpoint to, one’s intellectual development
with regard to theological issues.  The adage usually goes something
like this:  “I was once a believer,

I was never a believer and never indoctrinated into any religion and the same applies to many atheists.
 

but then I started thinking
critically and recognized that there is no evidence that God exists.”
By contrast, theists are viewed as credulous fools, so weak that they
are willing to waste the one life that they get on incredible
superstitions.  As such, the idea that someone could sensibly abandon
atheism for theism seems unfathomable.
       But in reality, what’s really going on here is that a small minority
of the world’s population, after failing to progress their knowledge
of theology beyond the “crayon Christianity”

Not all theists are Christians and those that are, there are 30000+ versions of Christianity. Which one is the "crayon Christianity" version?
 

that they learned in
Sunday School or Catechism, never moved beyond the rebellious stage of
their adolescent life where authority is bad, truth is illusory,
freedom is unlimited, etc.  The problem was further compounded when
authors and publishers exploited this market by releasing
unsophisticated garbage such as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great,
The End of Faith, etc.  Now the atheists were given mainstream voices
and the sad result consisted of atheists on message boards or in chat
rooms regurgitating the same tripe, almost verbatim;

 

“Atheism is a
lack of belief in God!”, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence!”, “If everything needs a creator, then who created God?!”,
and so on.

Exactly!
 

       Of course, to those with more than just a passing interest in actual
philosophy or theology, these arguments are laughable.  However,
amusement soon turns to frustration because no matter how many times
atheists are corrected, they fail to advance their level of
discourse.  After a while, theists get tired of forgetting what year
it is and decide to not even bother, to which the atheists respond by
pretending that they’ve scored some sort of victory.
       So here’s the reality:  Atheism is just wishful thinking.

Not having a belief in something is wishful thinking? How does that work?

Wishful thinking in what?
 

 The main
reason it has adherents is that it allows for humans to live life
according to their own rules,

Human beings do that anyway whether they're religious or not.

The interpretation of the "rules" of the Bible have undergone numerous changes over the last 2000 years and Christians live according to the rules of society just like everyone else.

Well, with the exception of the religious extremists, of course, who are running around shooting abortion doctors, etc.
 

and does so presumptuously under the
auspices of natural science, a field which they have adopted as their
measuring stick for the real so as to propagate the illusion that
their views are more “scientific“.

Science isn't scientific? What is it then?
 

 Even the intelligent atheists such
as Quentin Smith or Bertrand Russell, to whom I would be remiss to
overlook, share this in common with the layman atheists (or
“latheists”, perhaps), which inevitably led them to develop their
minds for all the wrong reasons.  In essence, despite the fact that
atheism cannot survive philosophical scrutiny,

How is a lack of belief in something supposed to survive "philosophical scrutiny" when it isn't a philosophy?

--
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."  ~Noam Chomsky

"Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government."  ~Lenny Bruce

[student13]

Chuck: So here’s the reality: Atheism is just wishful thinking. The

main
reason it has adherents is that it allows for humans to live life
according to their own rules, and does so presumptuously under the
auspices of natural science, a field which they have adopted as their
measuring stick for the real so as to propagate the illusion that
their views are more “scientific“.

I know, I am on the "ignored list" and so I need not expect any
response.
Still, I wonder if Chuck will venture to "list" *their (atheists) own
rules that allows
for humans to live life which are different from the rules that
theists live -
"under the auspices of natural science" ? It, sure will be an
education.

cheers
st13

[lawrey]

Chuck,

Hello! I see you are in fine fettle not least with your obvious
ability
at hiding behind well proportioned verbage. Pity it lacks credibility.

Your eagerness to find words to express your dismay at the
ever deminishing effect of religion on a more educated populous
must be galling for you.

However atheism needs no correction, since there is nothing in
it to correct. I refer to:

> "However, amusement soon turns to frustration because no
> matter how many times atheists are corrected, they fail to
> advance their level of discourse."

After all this time you still have not grasped the simple fact;
That atheism is (non belief in god/s). Nothing more.

> "So here’s the reality: Atheism is just wishful thinking. The main
> reason it has adherents is that it allows for humans to live life

> according to their own rules.

SEE definition of Atheism above. Your refusal to accept
reality is your undoing. You have allowed paganistic ritual
and M D religious tradition derived therefrom to cloud your
thinking ability and you prefer to consort with superstitous
religion in an unknown, make-believe, metaphyisical realm,
rather than face your own excruciatingly ineffectuality.

When will you learn to think for yourself? My pity is with
you in these hard times, difficult to deal with and the
deminishing religious congregations. How the thought
of the rise in the Atheist's way of thinking must gall you.

[TLC]

Chucky Egg,

You forgot to mention how atheists all learn how to give menacing
laughs when we say, "We are going to take over the world, HA, HA,
HA.."

On Nov 17, 3:28 am, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:

[e_space]

lol ... you must be one of observers disciples, right? ;-^)

[e_space]

some atheists believe in the supernatural and in spirits? wow, wonder
why none of them come here! ... sorta funny that one group can have
such disparate views ... typically the mention of "spirit" here gets
met with ridicule and extended bouts of guffawing ... if there are any
atheists here that actually believe in spirit, please answer this ...
if they arent of "god" [and i dont mean the abrahamic version], what
are they?

[e_space]

you are 100% on the money that "atheism needs no correction, since
there is nothing in it to correct" ... quite so, the lack of belief
has no weight, no substance, and therefore nothing to manipulate ...

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:57 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

some atheists believe in the supernatural and in spirits? wow, wonder
why none of them come here!

Maybe they don't want to be associated with charlatans like you?

I can see how that could be excruciatingly embarrassing for them.

--

[e_space]

lol ... why not address the issue for a change, instead of simply
spreading your inherent hatred? if you ever got out of the sunny side
of bed you would probably be blinded ... but give it a shot
sometime ... never know, ya just might like it ;-^)

let me get this straight ... i have the potential to "excruciatingly
embarrass" atheists? i realize that you dont need any justification to
make dimwitted and false statements such as this, but this sorta takes
the cake ... what the hell are you possibly talking about? why do you
insist on making bizarre, abstract and purely goofy comments like this
without even attempting to explain what your silly mind has somehow
concocted? take some time tranny, give it some thought, and for a
change try to rationally express your commentary, is my suggestion ...
novel idea, eh? ;-^)

btw, from what i know, you have driven away many more atheists from
here than i ever have, and if i have in fact driven out any, they were
most likely abusive types, such as yourself ...

On Nov 17, 7:08 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:37 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

lol ... why not address the issue for a change, instead of simply
spreading your inherent hatred?

Despite your insistence that others are doing what you do, it's patently obvious that you are the one responsible for almost all of the hate-filled post on this site.

Of course narcissistic bullies like you always blame your targets for your own maliciousness. That's a pretty consistent characteristic of the narcissistic bully as evidenced by Steve Rossi and others.

<snipped pathological lies, incessant anti-atheist hate, and defense of past whiny trolls>

--

[Gokudomatic]

On 17 nov, 12:57, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> some atheists believe in the supernatural and in spirits? wow, wonder
> why none of them come here! ... sorta funny that one group can have
> such disparate views ... typically the mention of "spirit" here gets
> met with ridicule and extended bouts of guffawing ... if there are any
> atheists here that actually believe in spirit, please answer this ...

I'm not sure why you're talking about spirits and superstitious
atheists.

> if they arent of "god" [and i dont mean the abrahamic version], what
> are they?

well, maybe... spirits.
I don't know, I don't believe in them.

[Walt]

If you're done with all that, can you now make an actual argument in
favor of your religious beliefs? Or are you just challenging Brock to
a Most Pompous Theist on AvC contest?

[Steve in Virginia]

TLC

You forgot to put BWAA...in front of the HAs!

Steve :)

On Nov 17, 6:10 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Rupert]

On Nov 17, 2:28 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>         It is quite fascinating how atheists precariously champion their
> worldview to be culmination of one’s own metaphysical journey; the
> zenith of, and inevitable endpoint to, one’s intellectual development
> with regard to theological issues.  The adage usually goes something
> like this:  “I was once a believer, but then I started thinking
> critically and recognized that there is no evidence that God exists.”

Are you able to offer reasons to think that God exists? Could you
please do so?

[lawrey]

e_space,

So why are you trying so hard to manipulate it. It is as it has
so often been said: somply a non-belief on god/s. No correction
required thanks.

> > > with an entire paragraph full of nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[e_space]

im talking about them because someone else brought it up ... is that a
sufficient reason? if not, oh well ...

many people dont believe in spirit(s) ... so you are not alone ...
rejoice! ;-^)

[Deidzoeb]

On Nov 16, 10:28 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>         It is quite fascinating how atheists precariously champion their
> worldview to be culmination of one’s own metaphysical journey;

[citation needed]

Excuse me if I don't bother reading the rest. When the first sentence
is a straw man argument, it's usually downhill from there.

[e_space]

can you describe how i am "trying so hard to manipulate it"? or did
you just feel like saying that for no apparent reason? vagueness
really is in vogue around here, dont you think?

[e_space]

lol .. the queen of dodge city strikes again! what a joke ... hahahaha

On Nov 17, 8:47 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

lol ..

<snipped baseless personal attack and anti-atheist hatred>

This coming from the Troll who demands that he be able to make baseless assertions without evidence to support them on a *debating* group and then whines like a baby about what a bunch of meanies we all are when we ask for evidence to support those specious claims. IOW actually *debate*.

--

[e_space]

you have made many claims about me, stated as truth, yet when i ask
you to produce evidence of such, nothing is ever forthcoming ... any
explanation for this? you have called me a pathological liar what,
several hundred times now? ... yet you have never shown where i have
done so even once, let alone the multitude of times it takes for one
to be labeled as such ...

you know tranny, i could turn your claims that i am a liar back in
your face, because in reality, that is what you are doing when you
make this claim, yet i have never called you this, but still have the
propensity to call me a troll ... how about this ... put up, or shut
up ... do we have a deal? hmmmm?

On Nov 17, 4:45 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Gokudomatic]

On 17 nov, 22:38, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> im talking about them because someone else brought it up ... is that a
> sufficient reason? if not, oh well ...

I must have missed a part, then.

>
> many people dont believe in spirit(s) ... so you are not alone ...
> rejoice!  ;-^)

Yeeah! ^^

[Chuck]

lawrey wrote:
> After all this time you still have not grasped the simple fact;
> That atheism is (non belief in god/s). Nothing more.

This myth is continuously pervading itself throughout books, internet
discussion boards, public debates, and chat rooms. I'm going to
debunk it right now:

Atheism *is* a worldview. It is a worldview because it stands in
direct opposition to the following proposition, which an atheist
cannot share in common with a theist without ceasing to be a theist:
It is not possible that God does not exist.

In other words, the conception of God relevant to this message board,
the Christian conception, speaks of a God who is not simply some
superior being who happens to be real. This God is so powerful that
it is not logically possible for him to *not* exist. To even conceive
of such a thing would result in a logical contradiction. Positing the
possible nonexistence of God, or worse yet, the impossible existence
of God, is an opposing worldview.

Now, before you alacritously respond by parodying the argument I've
just made, e.g., "I think it's possible that unicorns do not exist, is
aunicornism a worldview?", I will argue that this is completely
different. The belief in the necessary existence of God is quite
tenable, as evidenced by the fact that it is a topic for many
published books, public debates, and classroom discussions. Many
Christian philosophers, such as Greg Bahnsen and William Lane Craig,
build their entire worldview around this very notion. Therefore, if
you are going to willingly stand in opposition to this, you *are* in
fact positing a worldview of your own, one that you will eventually
need to defend insofar that the belief in God's nonexistence will
require you to address other metaphysical issues, such as morality,
rationality, and the cosmos itself. This definitely does not apply to
aunicornism, does it? Find me a bunch of philosophers who build their
arguments around the necessary existence of unicorns, and, better yet,
who have shown that "necessary" and "unicorn" is logically consistent
(Hint: It isn't), then I'll consider your objection to be
legitimate.

As far as the etymology of the term goes, simply proclaiming that "a"
means "without" and "theism" means "belief in God" proves nothing.
For example, the word "superlative" is based on the Latin word
"superlatus", which means "to raise higher". "Superlative" actually
has nothing to do with physically raising something in the air, but
the word it is based on literally means that. Or you can approach
from this angle: "Super" means "very good" and "latus" (from which
the "lative" part is derived) means "extensive". Does it then follow
that "superlative" means "good at being extensive"?

The whole "lack of belief" thing is garbage. It is just a trick that
atheists use in order that they can keep themselves off the hotseat
and control the debate. Historically, how atheists describe their
atheism is really the meaning of "agnosticism", whereas "atheism"
referred to the antipathy towards God belief. In fact, the word
originates from the Greek "atheos", which simply means "Godless".
Nothing about there being a lack of belief.

Furthermore, all one has to do in order to nullify the claim that
atheism is some passive position is observe the behavior of atheists
on discussion boards, public debates, chatrooms, etc. Whenever
someone presents an argument for God, atheists do not simply dismiss
it, but they attack it vehemently. Not only that, but they will
literally spend hours doing so. Once, during a discussion with an
atheist, I was using modal logic to prove the existence of God. This
atheist started by positing all of these falsities regarding Modal
Logic. When I pointed out his mistakes, he admitted to literally
spending hours online researching Modal Logic, only so he could attack
it and explain why it is a flawed logical system. This is no passive
position. It's a *worldview* that atheists are defending. Would
someone spend that kind of time on undermining the existence of
unicorns? I think not.

So, please abandon this stupid idea that atheism is not a worldview.
It is. If you are not willing to defend it and would rather rely on
jejune tactics such as reinterpreting atheism to be some passive
thing, then you probably are not equipped to deal with the arguments
against your position.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

you have made many claims about me, stated as truth,

And demonstrated by your posts all over this site.

<snipped anti-atheist hatred, personal attacks, and pathological lies>

[e_space]

one would do ... not the ones "all over this site" ... just one ...
ONE! come on ... deliver or admit that it is you who is lying ...
simple to do ... do it and quit avoiding the issue ... okay?

On Nov 17, 6:07 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jelrak TB]

On Nov 17, 3:52 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> lawrey wrote:
> > After all this time you still have not grasped the simple fact;
> > That atheism is (non belief in god/s). Nothing more.
>
> This myth is continuously pervading itself throughout books, internet
> discussion boards, public debates, and chat rooms.  I'm going to
> debunk it right now:
>
> Atheism *is* a worldview.

I suppose I will agree with this in a sense. If I have 2 Christians in
a room I have a fairly good idea of their worldview, but with 2
atheists in a room I am going to have a harder time, but there will be
*some* similarities:

1) They will both agree that at the very least, the existence of God,
or any god, is uncertain
2) They will both agree that praying to a specific god, therefore, is
largely meaningless
3) They are not likely to be too concerned about any specific god's
rules or stated punishments

From there, however, they diverge. One might be desperate to de-
convert theists while the other might enjoy their company; one might
keep an open mind that there "might" be a god lurking out there
somewhere, while the other *knows for certain* that such a being does
not exist...and so on. The only way that atheists can maintain a
similar worldview is if they hold something else in common beyond
their atheism: are they both conservative-minded? Liberal? Strong or
weak atheists? Extroverts or introverts? Have a passion for model
trains????

Unlike theists, there is no Holy Book or tradition that holds them in
common; no weekly prayer service to reinforce their common goals; no
common newspaper or bulletin to remind of recommended activities; no
automatic assumptions in the background whenever they get together...

You seem like an educated person; and even though I disagree with what
you have written, I understand where it is coming from since I once
held those same beliefs. I hope we hear more from you...

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:26 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

one would do ... not the ones "all over this site" ... just one .

I have no need to prove a single thing to *you* and anyone else who wants to verify if I'm telling the truth can do a search on your name.

There are so many abusive and hate-filled posts by you that they will fall over them.

<snipped deceptive and lame attempt to get himself off the hook, pathologically lie by implying I'm a liar, and pathologically lie by implying that he doesn't>

--

[Chuck]

Jelrak TB wrote:
> I suppose I will agree with this in a sense. If I have 2 Christians in
> a room I have a fairly good idea of their worldview, but with 2
> atheists in a room I am going to have a harder time, but there will be
> *some* similarities:
>

> From there, however, they diverge. One might be desperate to de-
> convert theists while the other might enjoy their company; one might
> keep an open mind that there "might" be a god lurking out there
> somewhere, while the other *knows for certain* that such a being does
> not exist...and so on. The only way that atheists can maintain a
> similar worldview is if they hold something else in common beyond
> their atheism: are they both conservative-minded? Liberal? Strong or
> weak atheists? Extroverts or introverts? Have a passion for model
> trains????
>
> Unlike theists, there is no Holy Book or tradition that holds them in
> common; no weekly prayer service to reinforce their common goals; no
> common newspaper or bulletin to remind of recommended activities; no
> automatic assumptions in the background whenever they get together...

I understand what you are getting at, but I don't find it to be an
interesting point. While "Christian" is a generally more descriptive
term than "atheist", it's not as if the label "Christian" tells you
whether they enjoy football, appreciate art, have the ability to
dance, and so on. Plus, there is plenty of divergence in Christianity
with the non-essentials, such as whether we should worship on Saturday
or Sunday, whether there is free will in Heaven, whether God created
the world in 6 literal days or over the course of millions of years,
etc.

My thing is this: I just do not buy that atheism is this passive
position like my lack of belief in unicorns or my lack of belief in
Santa Clause. It's not a passive position at all, it is something to
be intellectually defended and justified. The reason is that, aside
from the fact that the presuppositional view of God does not allow for
even the *possibility* of his nonexistence, a world without God has
important implications for morality, rationality, human value, the
nature of minds, the afterlife, the meaning of life, etc. Clearly,
the lack of belief in God carries a lot more baggage than, say, the
lack of belief in Santa Clause. Furthermore, the lack of belief in
God, unlike the lack of belief in other things, moves people to
action. People who do not believe in God tend to behave a little bit
differently than those who do. I've never seen a lack of belief in
unicorns move anyone else in this way.

> You seem like an educated person; and even though I disagree with what
> you have written, I understand where it is coming from since I once

> held those same beliefs. I hope we hear more from you...- Hide quoted text -

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I will say that I believe Trance Gemini is a nice person and means
well. I will make the effort to be more cordial than I've been.

[Trance Gemini]

Thanks Chuck. And I'm with JTB. Happy to see you back and as you know I hope you stay. Your threads have been interesting and challenging even though we don't agree.

[JTB]

True, but while Christians might all value pleasing God as being "the highest priority," atheists might value a variety of things as holding their "highest priority."
 

My thing is this:  I just do not buy that atheism is this passive
position like my lack of belief in unicorns or my lack of belief in
Santa Clause.  It's not a passive position at all, it is something to
be intellectually defended and justified.  The reason is that, aside
from the fact that the presuppositional view of God does not allow for
even the *possibility* of his nonexistence, a world without God has
important implications for morality, rationality, human value, the
nature of minds, the afterlife, the meaning of life, etc.  Clearly,
the lack of belief in God carries a lot more baggage than, say, the
lack of belief in Santa Clause.  Furthermore, the lack of belief in
God, unlike the lack of belief in other things, moves people to
action.  People who do not believe in God tend to behave a little bit
differently than those who do.  I've never seen a lack of belief in
unicorns move anyone else in this way.

Oh, I see what you are saying. I would have to agree, given that I have lived both lives, as it were. When I was Christian there were assumed attitudes that went with the position, while as an atheist I have seen something of a shift in those ideals or concerns--such as, "since there is no God, is this really as important as it used to be, etc." Unfortunately, I cannot then project that each atheist has come to the exact same conclusions about what the missing element of God means in their lives...only mine, hence a hesitation to suggest there is an over-riding world-view...
 

> You seem like an educated person; and even though I disagree with what
> you have written, I understand where it is coming from since I once

> held those same beliefs. I hope we hear more from you...- Hide quoted text -

Thank you.  I appreciate that.

I will say that I believe Trance Gemini is a nice person and means
well.  I will make the effort to be more cordial than I've been.

That would be wonderful...look forward to it!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Duke of Omnium]

Chuck wrote:
> It is quite fascinating how atheists precariously champion their
> worldview to be culmination of one’s own metaphysical journey; the
> zenith of, and inevitable endpoint to, one’s intellectual development
> with regard to theological issues. The adage usually goes something
> like this: “I was once a believer, but then I started thinking
> critically and recognized that there is no evidence that God exists.”
> By contrast, theists are viewed as credulous fools, so weak that they
> are willing to waste the one life that they get on incredible
> superstitions. As such, the idea that someone could sensibly abandon
> atheism for theism seems unfathomable.

Not really. I believe you should never judge someone until you have
walked a mile in his moccasins, and catch his athlete's foot. I
believe, too, that it is self-evident that ANYONE'S worldview, at a
given time, necessarily will be the culmination of his metaphysical
journey.

> But in reality, what’s really going on here is that a small minority
> of the world’s population, after failing to progress their knowledge
> of theology beyond the “crayon Christianity” that they learned in
> Sunday School or Catechism, never moved beyond the rebellious stage of
> their adolescent life where authority is bad, truth is illusory,
> freedom is unlimited, etc.

Perhaps. Then again, even the Craigs and Lewises of the world don't
seem to have outgrown Crayolas.

> The problem was further compounded when
> authors and publishers exploited this market by releasing
> unsophisticated garbage such as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great,
> The End of Faith, etc. Now the atheists were given mainstream voices
> and the sad result consisted of atheists on message boards or in chat
> rooms regurgitating the same tripe, almost verbatim; “Atheism is a
> lack of belief in God!”, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence!”, “If everything needs a creator, then who created God?!”,
> and so on.

These are legitimate points, even if you want to call them "tripe".
After all, the statement "everything but god needs a creator" is
fallacious in se.

> Of course, to those with more than just a passing interest in actual
> philosophy or theology, these arguments are laughable.

Actually, they're not. They illustrate why theological "proofs"
inevitably fail.

> However,
> amusement soon turns to frustration because no matter how many times
> atheists are corrected, they fail to advance their level of
> discourse. After a while, theists get tired of forgetting what year
> it is and decide to not even bother, to which the atheists respond by
> pretending that they’ve scored some sort of victory.

"Corrected" begs the question. "Rebuked"; "whined at"; "cursed" --
all of these seem more apt. In my experience, theists are generally
VERY unsophisticated, philosophically speaking; if you mention Plato.
they think you're talking about the clay that comes in cans.

> So here’s the reality: Atheism is just wishful thinking. The main
> reason it has adherents is that it allows for humans to live life
> according to their own rules, and does so presumptuously under the
> auspices of natural science, a field which they have adopted as their
> measuring stick for the real so as to propagate the illusion that
> their views are more “scientific“. Even the intelligent atheists such
> as Quentin Smith or Bertrand Russell, to whom I would be remiss to
> overlook, share this in common with the layman atheists (or
> “latheists”, perhaps), which inevitably led them to develop their
> minds for all the wrong reasons. In essence, despite the fact that
> atheism cannot survive philosophical scrutiny, people gravitate
> towards it because of what it offers them in this lifetime. That’s
> all there is to it.

Atheism doesn't make philosophical statements. If you're railing at
metaphysical naturalists or materialists, please say so. Imprecise
terms are a sign of sloppy thinking.

[Bob T.]

On Nov 17, 2:52 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> lawrey wrote:
> > After all this time you still have not grasped the simple fact;
> > That atheism is (non belief in god/s). Nothing more.
>
> This myth is continuously pervading itself throughout books, internet
> discussion boards, public debates, and chat rooms.  I'm going to
> debunk it right now:

No, you're not.
>
> Atheism *is* a worldview.

No, it isn't.

>  It is a worldview because it stands in
> direct opposition to the following proposition, which an atheist
> cannot share in common with a theist without ceasing to be a theist:
> It is not possible that God does not exist.

I was right - you're wrong.

>
> In other words, the conception of God relevant to this message board,
> the Christian conception, speaks of a God who is not simply some
> superior being who happens to be real.  This God is so powerful that
> it is not logically possible for him to *not* exist.

That was stupid when you shopped it around last month. It's still
stupid now.

> To even conceive of such a thing would result in a logical contradiction.

No, it wouldn't. Right now I'm imagining the dumbest possible
argument in favor of God...

> Positing the possible nonexistence of God, or worse yet, the impossible existence
> of God, is an opposing worldview.
>

Wow! My imaganation became real... maybe you really can cause God to
exist just be wishing really really hard!

> Now, before you alacritously respond by parodying the argument I've
> just made, e.g., "I think it's possible that unicorns do not exist, is
> aunicornism a worldview?", I will argue that this is completely
> different.  The belief in the necessary existence of God is quite
> tenable, as evidenced by the fact that it is a topic for many
> published books, public debates, and classroom discussions.  Many
> Christian philosophers, such as Greg Bahnsen and William Lane Craig,
> build their entire worldview around this very notion.  

Yep - even famous intelligent Christians have some really dumb ideas.

> Therefore, if you are going to willingly stand in opposition to this, you *are* in
> fact positing a worldview of your own, one that you will eventually
> need to defend insofar that the belief in God's nonexistence will
> require you to address other metaphysical issues, such as morality,
> rationality, and the cosmos itself.  

Nope, you're still wrong.

> This definitely does not apply to aunicornism, does it?  Find me a bunch of philosophers who build their
> arguments around the necessary existence of unicorns, and, better yet,
> who have shown that "necessary" and "unicorn" is logically consistent
> (Hint: It isn't), then I'll consider your objection to be legitimate.

Well, I can't find that for you, but I can find you a bunch of
philosophers who believe in the necessary existence of Shiva, Brahma
and Vishnu.

>
> As far as the etymology of the term goes, simply proclaiming that "a"
> means "without" and "theism" means "belief in God" proves nothing.
> For example, the word "superlative" is based on the Latin word
> "superlatus", which means "to raise higher".  "Superlative" actually
> has nothing to do with physically raising something in the air, but
> the word it is based on literally means that.  Or you can approach
> from this angle:  "Super" means "very good" and "latus" (from which
> the "lative" part is derived) means "extensive".  Does it then follow
> that "superlative" means "good at being extensive"

You are correct, the mere etymology of the term "atheism" doesn't
prove much.

>
> The whole "lack of belief" thing is garbage.

Nope.

> It is just a trick that atheists use in order that they can keep themselves off the hotseat
> and control the debate.  

Nope.

> Historically, how atheists describe their
> atheism is really the meaning of "agnosticism", whereas "atheism"
> referred to the antipathy towards God belief.  In fact, the word
> originates from the Greek "atheos", which simply means "Godless".
> Nothing about there being a lack of belief.

In this group, and most other places I'm acquainted with, we use the
modern definitions for words, not old definitions that you've cherry-
picked because they seem to support your opinions.

>
> Furthermore, all one has to do in order to nullify the claim that
> atheism is some passive position is observe the behavior of atheists
> on discussion boards, public debates, chatrooms, etc.  Whenever
> someone presents an argument for God, atheists do not simply dismiss
> it, but they attack it vehemently.  Not only that, but they will
> literally spend hours doing so.  Once, during a discussion with an
> atheist, I was using modal logic to prove the existence of God.

Tee-hee - I remember that thread, the only person you convinced with
your "proof" was yourself.

>  This atheist started by positing all of these falsities regarding Modal
> Logic.  When I pointed out his mistakes, he admitted to literally
> spending hours online researching Modal Logic, only so he could attack
> it and explain why it is a flawed logical system.  This is no passive
> position.

So... one atheist wasted a bunch of time arguing with you - what do
you think that proves?

>  It's a *worldview* that atheists are defending.  

Oh, right, nobody would bother arguing with you just because you're
wrong. Nobody would bother with your arrogant and obnoxious posts
unless they were defending a *worldview*.

> Would someone spend that kind of time on undermining the existence of
> unicorns?  I think not.

Are you new to the Internet? Have you not notices that people will
argue about *anything*?

>
> So, please abandon this stupid idea that atheism is not a worldview.
> It is.  If you are not willing to defend it and would rather rely on
> jejune tactics such as reinterpreting atheism to be some passive
> thing, then you probably are not equipped to deal with the arguments
> against your position.

Holy crap, you're such an obnoxious twit!

- Bob T

[Chuck]

"Bob T." wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, all one has to do in order to nullify the claim that
> > atheism is some passive position is observe the behavior of atheists
> > on discussion boards, public debates, chatrooms, etc.  Whenever
> > someone presents an argument for God, atheists do not simply dismiss
> > it, but they attack it vehemently.  Not only that, but they will
> > literally spend hours doing so.  Once, during a discussion with an
> > atheist, I was using modal logic to prove the existence of God.
>
> Tee-hee - I remember that thread, the only person you convinced with
> your "proof" was yourself.

Actually, the discussion I'm referring to did not take place on this
newsgroup. It was at the Rational Responders website, where this
atheist, instead of focusing on the validity or the soundness of the
argument, simply attacked modal logic. In effect, he pretty much
agreed that the argument was valid under that formal system and was
reduced to dismissing it entirely, like someone dismissing basic
mathematics because they hate it that 1 + 1 = 2.

[Max]

You don't even have a definition of "god" so how the fuck could anyone
answer that?

Besides, if any so called atheist said to me he/she believes in
spirits, I'd give 'em a verbal lambasting just as as I would any
nutter.

Back we'd go to verifiable & repeatable observations via the
scientific method.

But there's no laws against nutters and nearly nutters carrying on
with their nutty claims, more's the pity.

On Nov 17, 7:57 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> some atheists believe in the supernatural and in spirits? wow, wonder
> why none of them come here! ... sorta funny that one group can have
> such disparate views ... typically the mention of "spirit" here gets
> met with ridicule and extended bouts of guffawing ... if there are any
> atheists here that actually believe in spirit, please answer this ...

[dood]

Is that the best you can do?

On Nov 16, 9:37 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, I always wondered what the truth was but I never would have guessed
> that Chuck would have it.
>
> But, since I didn't see it in the text I must ask, what is it, then?

>
> On 16 November 2010 22:28, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >        It is quite fascinating how atheists precariously champion their
> > worldview to be culmination of one’s own metaphysical journey; the
> > zenith of, and inevitable endpoint to, one’s intellectual development
> > with regard to theological issues.  The adage usually goes something
> > like this:  “I was once a believer, but then I started thinking
> > critically and recognized that there is no evidence that God exists.”
> > By contrast, theists are viewed as credulous fools, so weak that they
> > are willing to waste the one life that they get on incredible
> > superstitions.  As such, the idea that someone could sensibly abandon
> > atheism for theism seems unfathomable.

> >        But in reality, what’s really going on here is that a small minority
> > of the world’s population, after failing to progress their knowledge
> > of theology beyond the “crayon Christianity” that they learned in
> > Sunday School or Catechism, never moved beyond the rebellious stage of
> > their adolescent life where authority is bad, truth is illusory,

> > freedom is unlimited, etc.  The problem was further compounded when

> > authors and publishers exploited this market by releasing
> > unsophisticated garbage such as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great,
> > The End of Faith, etc.  Now the atheists were given mainstream voices
> > and the sad result consisted of atheists on message boards or in chat
> > rooms regurgitating the same tripe, almost verbatim; “Atheism is a
> > lack of belief in God!”, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> > evidence!”, “If everything needs a creator, then who created God?!”,
> > and so on.

> >        Of course, to those with more than just a passing interest in actual

> > philosophy or theology, these arguments are laughable.  However,

> > amusement soon turns to frustration because no matter how many times
> > atheists are corrected, they fail to advance their level of
> > discourse.  After a while, theists get tired of forgetting what year
> > it is and decide to not even bother, to which the atheists respond by
> > pretending that they’ve scored some sort of victory.

> >        So here’s the reality:  Atheism is just wishful thinking.  The main
> > reason it has adherents is that it allows for humans to live life
> > according to their own rules, and does so presumptuously under the
> > auspices of natural science, a field which they have adopted as their
> > measuring stick for the real so as to propagate the illusion that
> > their views are more “scientific“.  Even the intelligent atheists such
> > as Quentin Smith or Bertrand Russell, to whom I would be remiss to
> > overlook, share this in common with the layman atheists (or
> > “latheists”, perhaps), which inevitably led them to develop their
> > minds for all the wrong reasons.  In essence, despite the fact that
> > atheism cannot survive philosophical scrutiny, people gravitate
> > towards it because of what it offers them in this lifetime.  That’s
> > all there is to it.

> >        Those who have advanced beyond that adolescent stage, you know what
> > I’m talking about.  But to those who are as I’ve described, I fully
> > anticipate some long-winded reply, isolating each line of this post
> > (thereby taking it out of its proper context) and responding to it
> > with an entire paragraph full of nonsense.
>

> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>

> --
> Musique.
>
> http://atw.koolhost.com/music.htm<http://atw.Koolhost.com/music.htm>http://www.facebook.com/simon.ewinshttp://reverbnation.com/simonewinshttp://youtube.com/sjewins- Hide quoted text -

[dood]

Better than Simon's reply but then not convincing TG. Love you
anyway.



On Nov 17, 4:11 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Chuck

>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >        It is quite fascinating how atheists precariously champion their
> > worldview
>

> There is no such thing as an atheist "worldview". We simply lack a belief in
> gods.
>
> Atheists have other beliefs but they are not necessarily the same beliefs.
>
> For example, some atheists are supernaturalists who don't believe in gods
> but do believe in spirits or hold dualist beliefs like karma.
>
> Other atheists are naturalists and materialists.

>
> > to be culmination of one’s own metaphysical journey; the
> > zenith of, and inevitable endpoint to, one’s intellectual development
> > with regard to theological issues.  The adage usually goes something
> > like this:  “I was once a believer,
>

> I was never a believer and never indoctrinated into any religion and the
> same applies to many atheists.

>
> > but then I started thinking
> > critically and recognized that there is no evidence that God exists.”
> > By contrast, theists are viewed as credulous fools, so weak that they
> > are willing to waste the one life that they get on incredible
> > superstitions.  As such, the idea that someone could sensibly abandon
> > atheism for theism seems unfathomable.
> >        But in reality, what’s really going on here is that a small minority
> > of the world’s population, after failing to progress their knowledge
> > of theology beyond the “crayon Christianity”
>

> Not all theists are Christians and those that are, there are 30000+ versions
> of Christianity. Which one is the "crayon Christianity" version?

>
> > that they learned in
> > Sunday School or Catechism, never moved beyond the rebellious stage of
> > their adolescent life where authority is bad, truth is illusory,
> > freedom is unlimited, etc.  The problem was further compounded when
> > authors and publishers exploited this market by releasing
> > unsophisticated garbage such as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great,
> > The End of Faith, etc.  Now the atheists were given mainstream voices
> > and the sad result consisted of atheists on message boards or in chat
> > rooms regurgitating the same tripe, almost verbatim;
>
> > “Atheism is a
> > lack of belief in God!”, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> > evidence!”, “If everything needs a creator, then who created God?!”,
> > and so on.
>

> Exactly!

>
> >        Of course, to those with more than just a passing interest in actual
> > philosophy or theology, these arguments are laughable.  However,
> > amusement soon turns to frustration because no matter how many times
> > atheists are corrected, they fail to advance their level of
> > discourse.  After a while, theists get tired of forgetting what year
> > it is and decide to not even bother, to which the atheists respond by
> > pretending that they’ve scored some sort of victory.
> >        So here’s the reality:  Atheism is just wishful thinking.
>

> Not having a belief in something is wishful thinking? How does that work?
>
> Wishful thinking in what?

>
> >  The main
> > reason it has adherents is that it allows for humans to live life
> > according to their own rules,
>

> Human beings do that anyway whether they're religious or not.
>
> The interpretation of the "rules" of the Bible have undergone numerous
> changes over the last 2000 years and Christians live according to the rules
> of society just like everyone else.
>
> Well, with the exception of the religious extremists, of course, who are
> running around shooting abortion doctors, etc.

>
> > and does so presumptuously under the
> > auspices of natural science, a field which they have adopted as their
> > measuring stick for the real so as to propagate the illusion that
> > their views are more “scientific“.
>

> Science isn't scientific? What is it then?

>
> >  Even the intelligent atheists such
> > as Quentin Smith or Bertrand Russell, to whom I would be remiss to
> > overlook, share this in common with the layman atheists (or
> > “latheists”, perhaps), which inevitably led them to develop their
> > minds for all the wrong reasons.  In essence, despite the fact that
> > atheism cannot survive philosophical scrutiny,
>

> How is a lack of belief in something supposed to survive "philosophical
> scrutiny" when it isn't a philosophy?

[Simon Ewins]

On 17 November 2010 23:25, dood <doo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Is that the best you can do?

What else is there? He claimed to have truth and then didn't present any.

If he does better, I will also.

Now, what the fuck you got?



 

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Musique.

http://atw.koolhost.com/music.htm

http://www.facebook.com/simon.ewins

http://reverbnation.com/simonewins

http://youtube.com/sjewins

[e_space]

yeah, that response is 100% expected ... you can just spout off about
anything, make any sort of disparaging and accusatory remark about
anybody else without showing any evidence to support your claims, and
then whine and google report about people libeling you ... they must
laugh their asses off about your claims of abuse if in fact you do
report my comments [i dont believe you do] ... how messed up can one
person be? you take the cake girl ...

On Nov 17, 7:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

regarding your second last sentence ... you MUST be kidding!

[e_space]

ummmm ... i wasnt asking for their opinion of my definition of "god",
i was asking for their opinion about "spirit", since it was claimed
that some atheists believe in "spirit" but not in "god"??? please wipe
yer glasses off mate, ta

like i or anybody else should give a crap about your verbal
lambasting ... it sure wouldnt last around me for long i guarantee ya
that ... why should anyone give a rats ass about your opinion about
it? what relevance does that have to their belief system? and why
would you prattle on about something that you have absolutely no idea
about anyway? sorta silly aint ya?

live your reality to the drum roll of that which is concluded by
scientific community all ya want mate ... in my opinion that makes you
more like a lab rat than a free thinking human ... that you base your
beliefs on the determinations of science is a sad statement against
the joy of imagination, and shuts the door to places that science has
yet to find answers for ... nice box you live in there max ... very
square indeed ;-^)

[Max]

On Nov 18, 5:38 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ummmm ... i wasnt asking for their opinion of my definition of "god",
> i was asking for their opinion about "spirit", since it was claimed
> that some atheists believe in "spirit" but not in "god"??? please wipe
> yer glasses off mate, ta

You don't have a definition on this thing you call God you fuckwit.

Your words are here, to haunt you once more;

"and since no one knows what "god" looks like, let alone if it
exists"

and this one - Oh I do like this 'un

"i dont believe in "a god" ... i have experienced [multiple times]
what i believe to be a vastly superior level of existence" & then "i
have no idea what i am talking about ;-^)"

You're a funny bugger that's for sure.

>
> like i or anybody else should give a crap about your verbal
> lambasting ... it sure wouldnt last around me for long i guarantee ya
> that ...

Ahhhh tuff guy huh! Put up ya dukes....put 'em up....(You sound like
the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz))

why should anyone give a rats ass about your opinion about
> it? what relevance does that have to their belief system? and why
> would you prattle on about something that you have absolutely no idea
> about anyway? sorta silly aint ya?

With your own admission above, apparently you have no idea either. The
difference being that you're making the nutjob claims, not me!

>
> live your reality to the drum roll of that which is concluded by
> scientific community all ya want mate ... in my opinion that makes you
> more like a lab rat than a free thinking human ... that you base your
> beliefs on the determinations of science is a sad statement against
> the joy of imagination, and shuts the door to places that science has
> yet to find answers for ... nice box you live in there max ... very
> square indeed ;-^)

Everyone can imagine. Most of us do dream, imagine, fantasise,
ruminate and all manner of things......but just because you think
about something, doesn't make it real.

Just because you had an experience, doesn't mean what you think it
means necessarily. The explanation could be as simple as Ob's very
concise and reasonable conclusion.

At least he can articulate an explanation.

You just mumble incoherent shit.

[lawrey]

Chuck,

Thanks for your response.

May I say at the outset that we are both entitled to an opinion
on the matter. Mine happens to differ with yours.

I make the statement again and again, (Atheism is a non-belief
in god/s.) Punct!

In order to sustain or indeed promulgate your belief in the
existence of the thing you call a god. First it must be shown
to have a valid existence. No such thing is shown. Therefore
any argument you care to put forward in this regard, can
only be viewed as another subjective belief.

It remains and always will remain a superstition drawn from
earlier pagan history, when the first known simple peoples
had problems understanding the more destuctive forces of
nature.

They needed answers as to why gales blew, how they blew,
and what made them blow? when and because their brains
had not developed enough to comprehend such matters;
they concluded there must be some external force at work.
Something beyond and apart from them, some superhuman
being, controlling the wind and making it blow.

So it was with many natural events which for them were
inexplicablly incomprehensible had to be controlled by a
mysterious force to which they designated a seperate
being a superhuman being. Much later these beings were
given names and as we know very much later became
known as gods. There were many gods. (Polytheism.).

Polytheism continued up until 1375 BC.
When the then ruler in Egypt and Babylon was Arkhenaton.
He had changed his name from Armenhotep IV in reverence
for a SINGLE one and only true god that HE decreed was to be
ATON represented by the sun's disc.

This was the first Monotheistic god and so (Monotheism)
was born. The Hebrews bought into this idea and it was
this god that most attracted the Hebrew Pariarchal Fathers,
who were responsible for the Talmut.
The idea of Satan the great oposer to there chosen god,
came from the philosophy of Zaroaster.
The devil from the Jews later.

This is known history which, whilst certain elements may
be disputed in detail and time is enough to convince me
that god/s ARE, WERE, and always WILL BE just a
belief which took hold universally by the ability of the
Hebrews to write and spread; firstly among the Hebrew
population and thence to the wider world.

The printing and history of the bible is more generally
known and the spread of religion throughout the world
along with the pagan beliefs it carried and popularised
is generally understood and the various church fathers
down through the ages have been careful to preach the
fear of and the authority of their erstwhile godthing;
the central character of the BELIEF!

A belief is simply a notional idea formed by the brain
to explain and determine the make up of the idea.
The idea postulated in this case is an unknown
godthing, its make-up and appearance devised by the
individuals brain to compensate for the lack of any visual
and or physical evidence of such, in any other shape and
or from other than heresay and storyline proposals, such
as the bible. IT REMAINS A BELIEF!

It has no independent physical reality in fact and or
existence.

There is no such thing as a godthing.
Whatever you BELIEVE it to be.

I have no belief in your god/s. Therefore I am designated
an ATHEIST.

All your prattle teaches us nothing at all and is no food
even for thought.

The above history on the other hand, is open to scrutiny
and is the basis for the ever growing tide ebbing away
from theism.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM, dood <doo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Better than Simon's reply but then not convincing TG.  Love you
anyway.

Me too Dood ;-)

However ...

Exactly what isn't convincing about the fact that atheists have a multitude of worldviews and none of them can be defined as an atheist worldview?

There are atheists who are both supernaturalists and naturalists.

The supernaturalists are going to present a very different approach to the case for the existence of gods than the naturalists are.

So, where is the atheist worldview in this?

We'll just start with that premise since it's the key one.

[love&peace]

No, the are scared of their bullying twin brothers.

On Nov 17, 1:08 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:57 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > some atheists believe in the supernatural and in spirits? wow, wonder
> > why none of them come here!
>

> Maybe they don't want to be associated with charlatans like you?
>
> I can see how that could be excruciatingly embarrassing for them.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:54 AM, love&peace <willi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

No, the are scared of their bullying twin brothers.

Spiritualists are "scared of their bullying twin brothers"?

Exactly how does that work? And who are these "bullying twin brothers"?

I know people who are into New Age and Buddhism, etc. and while I don't agree with their beliefs, they are for the most part sane and would have nothing but contempt for the type of behavior that e_space exhibits here.

And if he were to join one of their sites they'd ban him so fast it would make his head spin.

There is nothing "spiritual" about him or anything he says.

He's nothing more than a charlatan looking to sell his snake oil to someone gullible enough to buy it.

And he bullies people in order to do it or if they dare to challenge him, while at the same time playing the poor little victim and claiming that others bully him. He actually incites people to respond to him in the way that they do for the sole purpose of being able to whine about his victimhood.

[dood]

On Nov 18, 7:51 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM, dood <dood...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> However ...
>
> Exactly what isn't convincing about the fact that atheists have a multitude
> of worldviews and none of them can be defined as an atheist worldview?

Why can't we define 'no belief in a creator' a world view?

Since as you stated, this is the key question, please allow the
snipping of the rest of the post.

dave

[Bob T.]

On Nov 18, 7:58 am, dood <dood...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:51 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM, dood <dood...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > However ...
>
> > Exactly what isn't convincing about the fact that atheists have a multitude
> > of worldviews and none of them can be defined as an atheist worldview?
>
> Why can't we define 'no belief in a creator' a world view?

If so, then "no belief in elves" is also a world view. A lack of
belief in gods can be a part of a person's worldview, but it is not in
and of itself a worldview.

- Bob T

[e_space]

lol ... fuckwit eh? maxine ... ya just gotta chill out man!

to repeat [yawn] ... we were not talking about my feelings,
description, concepts or promotions of "god" ... i was actually asking
a question about their opinion? ... ya must be bald with all those
low flying objects zooming over yer wee cranium huh? ;-^)

trust you to think i was talking about fighting you ... as a member in
good standing of the rabid troop that patrols the grounds of AvC, your
conclusion rings in as anticipated ... in case you have not considered
the options, beating the shit out of someone because you dont like
what they are saying is not the only way to avoid listening to
them? ... can you imagine that? i mean, someone could just walk away
from the rant, couldnt they? what an amazing concept huh? that thought
never made the giant leap from your physical gut reaction to your
brain, did it? lol

anyway, congratulations on responding to incoherent shit ... i guess
you are psychic then, and have determined my meaning through the haze?
well partially, as it seems you still have no idea what i was talking
about ... its okay though max, keep trying, rub that crystal ball hard
enough and long enough and hopefully one of these millenniums it will
start to work properly for you ... ;-^)

[e_space]

lol ... i see your obsession train is still running uncontrollably at
full speed eh Miss Take? ;-^)

On Nov 18, 9:05 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock]

On Nov 16, 10:28 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>         It is quite fascinating how atheists precariously champion their
> worldview to be culmination of one’s own metaphysical journey; the
> zenith of, and inevitable endpoint to, one’s intellectual development
> with regard to theological issues.  The adage usually goes something
> like this:  “I was once a believer, but then I started thinking
> critically and recognized that there is no evidence that God exists.”
> By contrast, theists are viewed as credulous fools, so weak that they
> are willing to waste the one life that they get on incredible
> superstitions.  As such, the idea that someone could sensibly abandon
> atheism for theism seems unfathomable.
>         But in reality, what’s really going on here is that a small minority
> of the world’s population, after failing to progress their knowledge
> of theology beyond the “crayon Christianity” that they learned in
> Sunday School or Catechism, never moved beyond the rebellious stage of
> their adolescent life where authority is bad, truth is illusory,
> freedom is unlimited, etc.  

Very insightful concept, Chuck. :)

Best Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:40 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

lol ... i see your obsession train is still running uncontrollably at
full speed eh Miss Take? ;-^)

Stop derailing threads. Troll.

--

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:58 AM, dood <doo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:51 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM, dood <dood...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> However ...
>
> Exactly what isn't convincing about the fact that atheists have a multitude
> of worldviews and none of them can be defined as an atheist worldview?

Why can't we define 'no belief in a creator' a world view?

The problem here is that the only thing that atheists have in common is the lack of belief in gods which isn't a belief.

The *reason* for the lack of beliefs is what would constitute a worldview as Chuck correctly indicated and would be based on existing beliefs.

Since the reason for that lack of belief differs amongst atheists because it's based on existing beliefs, those reasons can't be defined as having an atheist worldview. They can only be defined as that particular atheists worldview.

In order for the reasons to be defined as an atheist worldview they would *have* to be the same for *all* atheists.

The supernaturalist atheist who believes in karma or dualism isn't going to apply the same rational for why he/she lacks a belief in gods as the materialist atheist.

A Secular Humanist and a Communist who are atheists may also apply different rationale.

Mainly because Secular Humanist atheists tend to be methodological naturalists who are agnostic on the existence of generic gods and Communists who are atheists tend to be metaphysical naturalists who are gnostic on the existence of all gods, that is, gods don't exist.

Since as you stated, this is the key question, please allow the
snipping of the rest of the post.

No problem :-)

[dood]

worldview definition per dictionary.com: Comprehensive conception or
image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it.

How do elves figure into that? God/no god - Yes....Elves/no elves -
I don't think so.

[dood]

PS Bob,

Chuck handled it much more eloquently than I in his reference to
belief/non-belief in unicorns.

> > - Bob T- Hide quoted text -

[JTB]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:03 PM, dood <doo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

PS Bob,

Chuck handled it much more eloquently than I in his reference to
belief/non-belief in unicorns.

Only in that unicorns have virtually no bearing on day-to-day life, whereas elves! Why, if elves existed we could explain a great deal of mysterious phenomena: the missing scissors, the strange sounds at night, the children's imaginary friend, etc...we could also leave out milk and cookies along with uncut leather and hope to find shoes in the morning...

Unicorns are only useful if you need to nullify poison, and even then they'll only come along if you are a female virgin...so you can see the radically different potential life-changing influences between the two!

On Nov 18, 12:55 pm, dood <dood...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> worldview definition per dictionary.com: Comprehensive conception or
> image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it.
>
> How do elves figure into that?  God/no god - Yes....Elves/no elves -
> I don't think so.
>
> On Nov 18, 10:06 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 7:58 am, dood <dood...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why can't we define 'no belief in a creator' a world view?
>
> > If so, then "no belief in elves" is also a world view.  A lack of
> > belief in gods can be a part of a person's worldview, but it is not in
> > and of itself a worldview.
>

> > - Bob T- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

[e_space]

oh i see ... i'm not supposed to respond to your negative comments
about me huh? you get to use me as subject matter for your
misconceptions and hatred, and i am supposed to sit here and take it
like a good little boy? right, gotcha ... tell you what ... you stop
pitching your hatred and i'll stop throwing it back to you ... have we
got a deal? of course, i know this has no interest for you, cuz you'd
have to totally change you MO, wouldnt you?

look how you went off on D the other day ... if you get the slightest
inkling that someone is speaking up against you or disagrees with you,
you go into these raging temper tantrums, bouts of name calling,
incessant character assassination, and general spewing of hatred ...
you want a clean environment? clean up your own act ... got it? [never
mind, i realize you dont even recognize your own stench, and likely
never will]

On Nov 18, 1:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Bob T.]

On Nov 18, 10:55 am, dood <dood...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> worldview definition per dictionary.com: Comprehensive conception or
> image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it.
>
> How do elves figure into that?  God/no god - Yes....Elves/no elves -
> I don't think so.
>

If there are elves around, there might also be orcs. Orcs typically
kill and eat humans, so if one's worldview allows for their existence,
one should be on the lookout.

- Bob T

> On Nov 18, 10:06 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 7:58 am, dood <dood...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why can't we define 'no belief in a creator' a world view?
>
> > If so, then "no belief in elves" is also a world view.  A lack of
> > belief in gods can be a part of a person's worldview, but it is not in
> > and of itself a worldview.
>

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:12 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

oh i see ...

Promises ... promises. Now stop the derailing the thread Troll.

<snipped pathological lies, abuse and hatred>

[Max]

Hence my remark fool. If you don't know what you're talking about and
you don't even know whether a 'God' even exists, how do you expect a
(proclaimed) atheist to define that in which you have no fucking idea.

Or have you forgotten that atheists lack belief in God(s) and hence
are unlikely to describe one for you. I disagree with TG to the extent
that an atheist cannot in all honesty, believe in any form of mumbo
jumbo, like your clap trap, because of the lack of any evidential
weight. Like I said, if someone who claims to be an atheist but also
holds a belief in spirits or fairies or some such rubbish, then one
really can't take them seriously.

BTW turd, using expletives does not mean that I'm unchilled me old
bucko.

It's simply a choice of language that conveys an element of disdain
towards whoever.

Mildly annoying and certainly requiring removal and often accompanied
with an expletive to show an element of misfortune as to have
encountered a turd once again.

[LL]

LL: Chuck, I have news for you. Lie down. You're an atheist, too.
Atheists simply believe in one less god than you do. It shouldn't be
so hard for you to understand what it's all about. You reject
thousands of gods. Is that wishful thinking?

Think!

> freedom is unlimited, etc.  The problem was further compounded when
> authors and publishers exploited this market by releasing
> unsophisticated garbage such as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great,
> The End of Faith, etc.  Now the atheists were given mainstream voices
> and the sad result consisted of atheists on message boards or in chat

> rooms regurgitating the same tripe, almost verbatim; “Atheism is a

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

<snipped>
 

I disagree with TG to the extent
that an atheist cannot in all honesty, believe in any form of mumbo
jumbo, like your clap trap, because of the lack of any evidential
weight.

<snipped>

At least you're not a frigging baby and drama queen about the disagreements we have (of which there have been plenty) ;-) like Deidzoeb and TB insist on being.
 
And the odd time things went overboard you were kind enough to be self-aware and apologize.

Something I've done when I realized I went overboard in a discussion as well.

There are some people on this site who appear to complete unable to be self-aware where there behavior is concerned.



Amazing how the biggest whiners about drama are the one's that create the most drama.

--

[dood]

You're Bad e_space....Trance G. is the most polite poster in here.
Lay off TG.

> > the government."  ~Lenny Bruce- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:54 PM, dood <doo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You're Bad e_space....Trance G. is the most polite poster in here.
Lay off TG.

Thanks Dood.

--

[Max]

You know mate.....it'd be a seriously dull world if we all agreed with
each other on everything, particularly on a debating forum!

That's how we (or at least I do) learn form others and then progress
ones ideas, thinking and understanding etc.

And IMO, being able to acknowledege that one is wrong or perhaps is
more willing to consider another view that may be more relevant
without the histrionics, is simply the mark of maturity.

Now I rarely concede immediately, but if after a few rounds I've been
boxed about the ears a bit, then what is so hard about saying..."Oh
yeah, I never thought of that...yeah, you might be right" (based on
evidence, logic, not woogity boogity claims etc).

Problem for the nutters though is that they have no wriggle room.

Once they accept a doctrine, they simply have to defend it even when
it makes no sense or is factually incorrect. I mean, what's the
alternative......concede that the God thing is rubbish?

They're fucked.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

You know mate.....it'd be a seriously dull world if we all agreed with
each other on everything, particularly on a debating forum!

That's how we (or at least I do) learn form others and then progress
ones ideas, thinking and understanding etc.

And IMO, being able to acknowledege that one is wrong or perhaps is
more willing to consider another view that may be more relevant
without the histrionics, is simply the mark of maturity.

Now I rarely concede immediately, but if after a few rounds I've been
boxed about the ears a bit, then what is so hard about saying..."Oh
yeah, I never thought of that...yeah, you might be right" (based on
evidence, logic, not woogity boogity claims etc).

Problem for the nutters though is that they have no wriggle room.

Once they accept a doctrine, they simply have to defend it even when
it makes no sense or is factually incorrect. I mean, what's the
alternative......concede that the God thing is rubbish?

They're fucked.

All true but I wonder what excuse atheists like Deidzoeb have?

Frigging baby.

I admit that I need to learn how to handle things as calmly as Neil does. Lol.

I don't know how he and DMan do it.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

You know mate.....it'd be a seriously dull world if we all agreed with
each other on everything, particularly on a debating forum!

That's how we (or at least I do) learn form others and then progress
ones ideas, thinking and understanding etc.

And IMO, being able to acknowledege that one is wrong or perhaps is
more willing to consider another view that may be more relevant
without the histrionics, is simply the mark of maturity.

Now I rarely concede immediately, but if after a few rounds I've been
boxed about the ears a bit, then what is so hard about saying..."Oh
yeah, I never thought of that...yeah, you might be right" (based on
evidence, logic, not woogity boogity claims etc).

Problem for the nutters though is that they have no wriggle room.

Once they accept a doctrine, they simply have to defend it even when
it makes no sense or is factually incorrect. I mean, what's the
alternative......concede that the God thing is rubbish?

They're fucked. 

All true but I wonder what excuse atheists like Deidzoeb have?

Just one more comment.

There are theists on this site who handle these disagreements (which are givens) better than atheists like Deidzoeb.

OldMan is one and I don't see Alan W or Semi or Art Grey for that matter acting like whiny babies about anything.
 
Same with some of the new ones.

They debate. We disagree. We move on.

Grown up behavior.

Frigging baby.

I admit that I need to learn how to handle things as calmly as Neil does. Lol.

I don't know how he and DMan do it.

--

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."  ~Noam Chomsky

"Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government."  ~Lenny Bruce

[e_space]

it was posted that some atheists believe in "spirit", but not in
"god" ... im simply asking what they think "spirit" is, if it is not
"god" ... is that somehow too complicated for you to grasp?

oh good, you disdain me ... at least ive accomplished something ... i
act with your attitude and now you are beginning to feel the impacts
of your abuse ... see, you are capable of learning ... dont give
up! ;-^)

[e_space]

all i can say is dont ever get on her bad side, or you will feel the
wrath of her rabid incisors ... if you think she is polite i sure
wouldnt want to meet who you feel is rude ... triple yuckie with a two
and half twist ...

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:15 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

all i can say is dont ever get on her bad side, or you will feel the
wrath of her rabid incisors ... if you think she is polite i sure
wouldnt want to meet who you feel is rude ... triple yuckie with a two
and half twist ...

Right. Just keep the lies coming.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:23 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
i am not a troll ... i respond to trolls in their own language and they hate it ... i actually manage to have a reasonable conversation on occasion with those who merit it, if they are not bullies and abusers such as the one you are currently "rationally debating" with ...

Trance's response:
"I target bullies and hate them". -- Steve Raucci (paraphrased)

Raucci was imprisoned for 28 years for bullying and terrorizing his employees with the full of knowledge of the administration with whom he had ingratiated himself.

He is suspected of being a narcissistic psychopath.


 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[William T. Goat]

On Nov 17, 5:52 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> lawrey wrote:
> > After all this time you still have not grasped the simple fact;
> > That atheism is (non belief in god/s). Nothing more.
>
> This myth is continuously pervading itself throughout books, internet
> discussion boards, public debates, and chat rooms.  I'm going to
> debunk it right now:
>
> Atheism *is* a worldview.  It is a worldview because it stands in
> direct opposition to the following proposition, which an atheist
> cannot share in common with a theist without ceasing to be a theist:
> It is not possible that God does not exist.

Note what you're saying: atheists accept more possibilities than
theists do. Thus, atheists are more open-minded than theists.

> In other words, the conception of God relevant to this message board,
> the Christian conception, speaks of a God who is not simply some
> superior being who happens to be real.  This God is so powerful that
> it is not logically possible for him to *not* exist.  To even conceive
> of such a thing would result in a logical contradiction.

I'm not sure that even makes sense. You're suggesting that anything we
can conceive of must exist, if only we attribute enough power to our
concept? What if someone were to conceive of a being more powerful
than the Christian conception of God?

Plus, the Christian God has many more attributes than just power; and
many people would argue that some of those attributes are incompatible
with His level of power, thus rendering the Christian concept of God
logically inconsistent.

> Positing the
> possible nonexistence of God, or worse yet, the impossible existence
> of God, is an opposing worldview.

Correct, but do not forget that "possible nonexistence of God" and
"impossible existence of God" are NOT equivalent worldviews. You have
defined atheism in terms of the first, not the second. Not all
atheists subscribe to the second, and thus do not have to defend it.

> Now, before you alacritously respond by parodying the argument I've
> just made, e.g., "I think it's possible that unicorns do not exist, is
> aunicornism a worldview?", I will argue that this is completely
> different.  The belief in the necessary existence of God is quite
> tenable, as evidenced by the fact that it is a topic for many
> published books, public debates, and classroom discussions.  Many
> Christian philosophers, such as Greg Bahnsen and William Lane Craig,
> build their entire worldview around this very notion.  Therefore, if
> you are going to willingly stand in opposition to this, you *are* in
> fact positing a worldview of your own, one that you will eventually
> need to defend insofar that the belief in God's nonexistence

...which was not your definition of atheism...


> will
> require you to address other metaphysical issues, such as morality,
> rationality, and the cosmos itself.

Indeed, for only in a universe without a God can morality and
rationality exist. The Christian conception of God is based on
fundamentally evil philosophies of morality and justice which even
Christians reject when pressed.


> This definitely does not apply to
> aunicornism, does it?  Find me a bunch of philosophers who build their
> arguments around the necessary existence of unicorns, and, better yet,
> who have shown that "necessary" and "unicorn" is logically consistent
> (Hint: It isn't), then I'll consider your objection to be
> legitimate.

Perhaps nobody has yet conceived of a powerful enough unicorn.


> As far as the etymology of the term goes, simply proclaiming that "a"
> means "without" and "theism" means "belief in God" proves nothing.
> For example, the word "superlative" is based on the Latin word
> "superlatus", which means "to raise higher".  "Superlative" actually
> has nothing to do with physically raising something in the air, but
> the word it is based on literally means that.  Or you can approach
> from this angle:  "Super" means "very good" and "latus" (from which
> the "lative" part is derived) means "extensive".  Does it then follow
> that "superlative" means "good at being extensive"?
>
> The whole "lack of belief" thing is garbage.  It is just a trick that
> atheists use in order that they can keep themselves off the hotseat
> and control the debate.  Historically, how atheists describe their
> atheism is really the meaning of "agnosticism", whereas "atheism"
> referred to the antipathy towards God belief.  In fact, the word
> originates from the Greek "atheos", which simply means "Godless".
> Nothing about there being a lack of belief.

Let me ask you this: according to Christian doctrine, aren't atheists
and agnostics equally damned to Hell? Does the distinction really
matter to a God Who has declared that a positive belief in Christ is
the ONLY path to salvation?


> Furthermore, all one has to do in order to nullify the claim that
> atheism is some passive position is observe the behavior of atheists
> on discussion boards, public debates, chatrooms, etc.  Whenever
> someone presents an argument for God, atheists do not simply dismiss
> it, but they attack it vehemently.  Not only that, but they will
> literally spend hours doing so. Once, during a discussion with an
> atheist, I was using modal logic to prove the existence of God.  This
> atheist started by positing all of these falsities regarding Modal
> Logic.  When I pointed out his mistakes, he admitted to literally
> spending hours online researching Modal Logic, only so he could attack
> it and explain why it is a flawed logical system.  This is no passive
> position.  It's a *worldview* that atheists are defending.  Would
> someone spend that kind of time on undermining the existence of
> unicorns?  I think not.

If the belief in unicorns inspired bigotry against unbelievers, you
bet they would.

http://www.timwise.org/2003/11/persecuting-the-truth-claims-of-christian-victimization-ring-hollow/

> So, please abandon this stupid idea that atheism is not a worldview.
> It is.  If you are not willing to defend it and would rather rely on
> jejune tactics such as reinterpreting atheism to be some passive
> thing, then you probably are not equipped to deal with the arguments
> against your position.

Christians should worry about coming up with convincing arguments
*for* their position. For example, they should explain why damning
stillborn babies to Hell is supremely good and loving.

(Let me guess: you're going to deny that the Christian God sends all
stillborn babies to Hell.)

--Billy

[tonysin]

Come on, fess up. You had this post ghost-written by Don King.

[JTB]

I guess I was wrong: Atheists do have a set of commandments that they follow...in fact they are apparently a requirement in order to be a *true atheist!*

http://www.iamanatheist.com/rights.html

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:39 PM, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Chuck <chuck...@comcast.net> wrote:

Jelrak TB wrote:
> I suppose I will agree with this in a sense. If I have 2 Christians in
> a room I have a fairly good idea of their worldview, but with 2
> atheists in a room I am going to have a harder time, but there will be
> *some* similarities:
>

> From there, however, they diverge. One might be desperate to de-
> convert theists while the other might enjoy their company; one might
> keep an open mind that there "might" be a god lurking out there
> somewhere, while the other *knows for certain* that such a being does
> not exist...and so on. The only way that atheists can maintain a
> similar worldview is if they hold something else in common beyond
> their atheism: are they both conservative-minded? Liberal? Strong or
> weak atheists? Extroverts or introverts? Have a passion for model
> trains????
>
> Unlike theists, there is no Holy Book or tradition that holds them in
> common; no weekly prayer service to reinforce their common goals; no
> common newspaper or bulletin to remind of recommended activities; no
> automatic assumptions in the background whenever they get together...

I understand what you are getting at, but I don't find it to be an
interesting point.  While "Christian" is a generally more descriptive
term than "atheist", it's not as if the label "Christian" tells you
whether they enjoy football, appreciate art, have the ability to
dance, and so on.  Plus, there is plenty of divergence in Christianity
with the non-essentials, such as whether we should worship on Saturday
or Sunday, whether there is free will in Heaven, whether God created
the world in 6 literal days or over the course of millions of years,
etc.

True, but while Christians might all value pleasing God as being "the highest priority," atheists might value a variety of things as holding their "highest priority."
 

My thing is this:  I just do not buy that atheism is this passive
position like my lack of belief in unicorns or my lack of belief in
Santa Clause.  It's not a passive position at all, it is something to
be intellectually defended and justified.  The reason is that, aside
from the fact that the presuppositional view of God does not allow for
even the *possibility* of his nonexistence, a world without God has
important implications for morality, rationality, human value, the
nature of minds, the afterlife, the meaning of life, etc.  Clearly,
the lack of belief in God carries a lot more baggage than, say, the
lack of belief in Santa Clause.  Furthermore, the lack of belief in
God, unlike the lack of belief in other things, moves people to
action.  People who do not believe in God tend to behave a little bit
differently than those who do.  I've never seen a lack of belief in
unicorns move anyone else in this way.

Oh, I see what you are saying. I would have to agree, given that I have lived both lives, as it were. When I was Christian there were assumed attitudes that went with the position, while as an atheist I have seen something of a shift in those ideals or concerns--such as, "since there is no God, is this really as important as it used to be, etc." Unfortunately, I cannot then project that each atheist has come to the exact same conclusions about what the missing element of God means in their lives...only mine, hence a hesitation to suggest there is an over-riding world-view...
 

> You seem like an educated person; and even though I disagree with what
> you have written, I understand where it is coming from since I once

> held those same beliefs. I hope we hear more from you...- Hide quoted text -

Thank you.  I appreciate that.

I will say that I believe Trance Gemini is a nice person and means
well.  I will make the effort to be more cordial than I've been.

That would be wonderful...look forward to it!

[Max]

Oh that's easy....it's as much about tactics as it is about
personality I suspect.

Debating with emotional detachment is either a built in trait (plenty
of academics are like that) or it's representative of those people who
understand that debate is about well articulated arguments sans any
emotional or demonstrative displays. In other words, by getting all
riled up may actually detract from the point of the debate i.e. to
win.

You see, even the 'other side' e.g. Brock, appears on the surface to
be very calm, restrained and measured. He's still full of shit, he
lies and he obfuscates but he feels ever so proud of this impeccable
behaviour, which in his mind is enough to validate his arguments. It's
quite a perverse view on things, but being the indoctrinated nutter he
is, he may well not even know it (But I do doubt that)

I just think that D-Man & Neil's personalities lend themselves towards
calm and unemotive displays because that is what they are like in
person and they recognise the folly of allowing adversaries to
sidetrack debate on matters of behaviour.

My problem is that occasionally, I feel the need to advise the odd
supercilious nutter to fuck off or something.

Probably an ego thing on my behalf, but it is what it is.

[Max]

It appears I misfired re: this post of yours. I was incorrect. I
apologise unreservedly.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:20 AM, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I guess I was wrong: Atheists do have a set of commandments that they follow...in fact they are apparently a requirement in order to be a *true atheist!*

http://www.iamanatheist.com/rights.html

And now I'm going to have to retract *everything* I said. <sheesh JTB>

:-D

--

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

Oh that's easy....it's as much about tactics as it is about
personality I suspect.

True. Really solid strategy and tactics takes the emotion out of it.
 

Debating with emotional detachment is either a built in trait (plenty
of academics are like that) or it's representative of those people who
understand that debate is about well articulated arguments sans any
emotional or demonstrative displays. In other words, by getting all
riled up may actually detract from the point of the debate i.e. to
win.

Well I think that depends. For example if both parties are focused on debate, for the most part (not always as you indicate) people can remain fairly calm and objective.

It's when the childish and often passive-aggressive strategies are used like unfounded accusations.

Their intent is to distract from the fact that the person has run out of arguments.

So the motivation is actually to derail the debate.

You see, even the 'other side' e.g. Brock, appears on the surface to
be very calm, restrained and measured. He's still full of shit, he
lies and he obfuscates but he feels ever so proud of this impeccable
behaviour, which in his mind is enough to validate his arguments. It's
quite a perverse view on things, but being the indoctrinated nutter he
is, he may well not even know it (But I do doubt that)

It's also called Sophistry and is used by Demagogues.

But I agree with your point. Restraint is no indication of solid debate.
 

I just think that D-Man & Neil's personalities lend themselves towards
calm and unemotive displays because that is what they are like in
person and they recognise the folly of allowing adversaries to
sidetrack debate on matters of behaviour.

I've met Neil and his SO and he is like that in person. Very nice guy.

My problem is that occasionally, I feel the need to advise the odd
supercilious nutter to fuck off or something.

I have exactly the same problem.
 

Probably an ego thing on my behalf, but it is what it is.

I don't know. Maybe it's just frustration....

[Max]

Ah, but TG.....imagine if we were all restrained and dispassionate and
controlled.

Oh dear....that's just not me....!!

Fuck 'em. Let's rip into the pricks!

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

Ah, but TG.....imagine if we were all restrained and dispassionate and
controlled.

Oh dear....that's just not me....!!

Fuck 'em. Let's rip into the pricks!

LOL!

Can't say I have an argument with that :-D

Although I'm trying to have some restraint when the wild-eyed accusations start.

Except with E_Space. His lies need exposing.

--

[Observer]

On Nov 16, 7:28 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>         It is quite fascinating how atheists precariously champion their
> worldview to be culmination of one’s own metaphysical journey; the
> zenith of, and inevitable endpoint to, one’s intellectual development
> with regard to theological issues.

Please explain "metaphysical journey" in as much as the search for god
is fruitless. Such (this fictive god thing) provides not one iota of
scientifically verifiable substantiating data for its existence or any
act thereof in or on this/these universe(s) the concept of theology is
suddenly transformed into the study of nothing and this god thing is
the the nothing which is thereby studied.

 The adage usually goes something
> like this:  “I was once a believer, but then I started thinking
> critically and recognized that there is no evidence that God exists.”

Observer
Very good , for a christian.

> By contrast, theists are viewed as credulous fools, so weak that they
> are willing to waste the one life that they get on incredible
> superstitions.  As such, the idea that someone could sensibly abandon
> atheism for theism seems unfathomable.

Observer
Once again very good.

>         But in reality, what’s really going on here is that a small minority
> of the world’s population, after failing to progress their knowledge
> of theology beyond the “crayon Christianity” that they learned in
> Sunday School or Catechism, never moved beyond the rebellious stage of
> their adolescent life where authority is bad, truth is illusory,
> freedom is unlimited, etc.

Observer
Many of us have a much broader and deeper understanding of the
biblical, sadomasochistic, psychosis that you will ever be able to
grasp. I for example was raised in a loving christian home and even
attended a christian university ( refrain from using the word educated
as it took me years to get a useful education and to replace the utter
stupidity of what was taught me while under their oppressive and
rather stupid brainwashing system) It was intensive study and back to
back readings of the bible which repulsed me and provided me the
benefit of atheism.

 The problem was further compounded when
> authors and publishers exploited this market by releasing
> unsophisticated garbage such as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great,
> The End of Faith, etc.

Observer
A flash of anger cursed through my body when I read that a relative
dimwit like you so evaluated your betters. It seems that the village
idiot is always the one who condemns those who are capable of
obtaining a useful education and who are putting such to proper use.

 Now the atheists were given mainstream voices
> and the sad result consisted of atheists on message boards or in chat
> rooms regurgitating the same tripe, almost verbatim; “Atheism is a
> lack of belief in God!”, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence!”, “If everything needs a creator, then who created God?!”,
> and so on.

Observer
All irrefutable and apothegmatic.

>         Of course, to those with more than just a passing interest in actual
> philosophy or theology, these arguments are laughable.  However,

Once again the village idiot laughs at that which he can not
understand.

> amusement soon turns to frustration because no matter how many times
> atheists are corrected,

Observer
You my stupid friend can not correct the intelligence which sub-stands
the refusal to believe that for which no scientifically verifiable
substantiating data exists proving either the EXISTENCE of or any ACT
of your dumb ass a god.

they fail to advance their level of
> discourse.  After a while, theists get tired of forgetting what year
> it is and decide to not even bother, to which the atheists respond by
> pretending that they’ve scored some sort of victory.

Observer
We can experience nothing but victory in relation to our position of
rejecting such sadomasochistic , superstitious filth as is contained
in that piece of shit and disinformation (the bible) or in the
nonsensical opinion that such as a god exists. It is interesting that
you say that you believe is this fantasy creature when you all of you
some two billion strong can not come up with a universally accepted
definition there of.

Try it , don't pretend that the attributes , propensities , wants
desires which you ascribe to it or even your nutty claims as to what
it did , can ,or will do suffices as a definition . What precisely is
it?

>         So here’s the reality:  Atheism is just wishful thinking.  The main
> reason it has adherents is that it allows for humans to live life
> according to their own rules, and does so presumptuously under the
> auspices of natural science, a field which they have adopted as their
> measuring stick for the real so as to propagate the illusion that
> their views are more “scientific“.

Observer
Well they are !

That which can not be studied by the application of scientific method
and which allows for no scientifically verifiable data as to its
existence or which provides for accurate prognostications as to
contingent and future events is irrelevant nonexistent or both.

Of course you have no way of knowing that because you have not taken
the time nor invested the mental capital necessary to acquire a
meaningful education.

 Even the intelligent atheists such
> as Quentin Smith or Bertrand Russell, to whom I would be remiss to
> overlook, share this in common with the layman atheists (or
> “latheists”, perhaps), which inevitably led them to develop their
> minds for all the wrong reasons.  In essence, despite the fact that
> atheism cannot survive philosophical scrutiny,

Observer
To quote one of the most profound thinkers this world has ever known
is Steven Hawking.

He and Leonard Mlodinow, his co-author, say that," in today's world,
what was once the realm of philosophy is now the task of science.
Philosophy is dead, they assert, because it has not kept up with
developments in modern science, particularly physics. As a result
scientists have become the bearers of the torch in our quest for
knowledge.

and

Hawking, and co-author Leonard Mlodinow, claim that understanding
complex theories will bring us to the truth about the creation of the
universe and it is "not necessary to invoke God."

people gravitate
> towards it because of what it offers them in this lifetime.  That’s
> all there is to it.
>         Those who have advanced beyond that adolescent stage, you know what
> I’m talking about.  But to those who are as I’ve described, I fully
> anticipate some long-winded reply, isolating each line of this post
> (thereby taking it out of its proper context) and responding to it
> with an entire paragraph full of nonsense.

Observer
Well such an attempt to be preemptive by criticizing what must actual
occur shows only your fear that you are going to be proved wrong.

Now I challenge you to debate the atheists one point at a time using
complete and scientifically verifiable substantiating data to back up
your claims . You will find your self looking the fool to everyone
with a brain and a useful education.

Come on lay it on us . Why should anyone believe the hideous
superstitious filth of the bible or for that matter why should anyone
believe that such as a god thing (which can not even be defined ).

Give us only compelling arguments and provide scientifically
verifiable data to back them up.

Now put up or shut up.

I personally wish you well but I detest the psychotic superstitious
filth that has stolen your mind and even your humanity.

Psychonomist

[e_space]

why dont you expose one then, like ive been asking ... hmmmmm??? got
one handy? two? more?

[e_space]

nice pop up

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

why dont you expose one

I have exposed many of your lies. No surprise that you would lie about that too.

Narcissists and pathological liars don't like being exposed for what they are.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:23 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
i am not a troll ... i respond to trolls in their own language and they hate it ... i actually manage to have a reasonable conversation on occasion with those who merit it, if they are not bullies and abusers such as the one you are currently "rationally debating" with ...

Trance's response:
"I target bullies and hate them". -- Steve Raucci (paraphrased)

Raucci was imprisoned for 28 years for bullying and terrorizing his employees with the full of knowledge of the administration with whom he had ingratiated himself.

He is suspected of being a narcissistic psychopath.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

why dont you expose one then, like ive been asking ... hmmmmm??? got
one handy? two? more?

E_Space  - Against Meditation

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thread/cff114d2d115ed4d?hl=en&tvc=1&q=disaster+for+atheists

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: e_space <espace1...@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 21 2009, 9:55 am
Subject: Disaster For Atheists!!
To: Atheism vs Christianity

yep...i came here to learn something...how to be void...prolly help
with meditation hahahahaha

On Apr 20, 10:07 pm, FreeThinker <kiphug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. There are far more Christians/theists in the world thanatheists.
> It would make statistical sense if that ratio reflected the membership
> of this group.
> 2. Perhaps these new members joined to actually learn something. By
> the way, being educated moves you away from theism.

-----------------------------------------------

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thread/942b6aec522a7d5d/d4787b6a05591c75?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=e_space+meditation+dangerous#d4787b6a05591c75

i introspect, leave out the welcome mat for visitation, etc. i started
to do so at a very young age after experiencing some unusual
feelings.
meditation is dangerous. one learns to turn the mind off and may
forget how to turn it back on  ;-)


-----------------------------------------------------
E_Space - For Meditation

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thread/811dc3588ff76bfe/eb756397e2d574cf?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=e_space+meditation+right+track+shi#eb756397e2d574cf

imo, the only way to recognize or find 'god' is with eyes closed and
welcome mat out. i think you are on the right track with meditation. i
dont believe anything you read will bring you any closer to
understanding or knowing 'god'.

-------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thread/eea93dbbc91e1bc7/04d951b5f3940ecc?hl=en#04d951b5f3940ecc

this concept is absolutely scoffed at
by most here, or simply not commented on. its sorta like nobody has
heard of, or contemplated, meditation, and this kinda boggles my mind.


------------------------------------------------------------

[JTB]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:20 AM, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I guess I was wrong: Atheists do have a set of commandments that they follow...in fact they are apparently a requirement in order to be a *true atheist!*

http://www.iamanatheist.com/rights.html

And now I'm going to have to retract *everything* I said. <sheesh JTB>

:-D

Sorry, it had me up a tree as well...but truth is truth!! (;-p  <--now my smiley has hair!
 

--

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."  ~Noam Chomsky

"Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government."  ~Lenny Bruce

--

[e_space]

whats that got to do with anything?

On Nov 19, 12:42 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > why dont you expose one then, like ive been asking ... hmmmmm??? got
> > one handy? two? more?
>
> E_Space  - Against Meditation
>

> Source:http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: e_space <espace1...@gmail.com>
> Date: Apr 21 2009, 9:55 am
> Subject: Disaster For Atheists!!
> To: Atheism vs Christianity
>
> yep...i came here to learn something...how to be void...prolly help
> with meditation hahahahaha
>
> On Apr 20, 10:07 pm, FreeThinker <kiphug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. There are far more Christians/theists in the world thanatheists.
> > It would make statistical sense if that ratio reflected the membership
> > of this group.
> > 2. Perhaps these new members joined to actually learn something. By
> > the way, being educated moves you away from theism.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...

>
> i introspect, leave out the welcome mat for visitation, etc. i started
> to do so at a very young age after experiencing some unusual
> feelings.

> *meditation* is *dangerous*. one learns to turn the mind off and may

> forget how to turn it back on  ;-)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> E_Space - For Meditation
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...

>
> imo, the only way to recognize or find 'god' is with eyes closed and

> welcome mat out. i think you are on the *right **track* with *meditation*. i

>
> dont believe anything you read will bring you any closer to
> understanding or knowing 'god'.
>

> -------------------------------------------------------------http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

whats that got to do with anything?

The following is the evidence you've been demanding of your lies.

Not that I'd expect a pathological liar like you to care or to admit your blatantly obvious lies.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[e_space]

its not evidence at all, firstly because you did not show where i said
i disagreed with meditation? funny that i should have to explain to
you that evidence in this instance involves two parts ... you know, me
saying that meditation was both good and bad??? you have shown
neither ... wakey wakey ... your asleep at the switch girl ...

On Nov 19, 2:55 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:10 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

its not evidence at all, firstly because you did not show where i said
i disagreed with meditation?

Your inability to read is not my fault.

Either

1. you're a complete idiot
2. you never learned to read
3. you're a pathological liar who continues his lies despite the fact that evidence is right there staring him in the face.

I'm guessing it's 3.

Although I suppose it's possible that someone really could be *that* stupid or didn't graduate from primary school.

First E_space says he's against meditation (after I mention that I meditate), then later when he wants to ingratiate himself to a new poster, he claims that he thinks meditation is great and claims that others criticize him for meditating.

E_Space  - Against Meditation

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thread/cff114d2d115ed4d?hl=en&tvc=1&q=disaster+for+atheists

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: e_space <espace1...@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 21 2009, 9:55 am
Subject: Disaster For Atheists!!
To: Atheism vs Christianity

yep...i came here to learn something...how to be void...prolly help
with meditation hahahahaha

On Apr 20, 10:07 pm, FreeThinker <kiphug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. There are far more Christians/theists in the world thanatheists.
> It would make statistical sense if that ratio reflected the membership
> of this group.
> 2. Perhaps these new members joined to actually learn something. By
> the way, being educated moves you away from theism.

-----------------------------------------------

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thread/942b6aec522a7d5d/d4787b6a05591c75?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=e_space+meditation+dangerous#d4787b6a05591c75

i introspect, leave out the welcome mat for visitation, etc. i started
to do so at a very young age after experiencing some unusual
feelings.

meditation is dangerous. one learns to turn the mind off and may

forget how to turn it back on  ;-)


-----------------------------------------------------
E_Space - For Meditation

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thread/811dc3588ff76bfe/eb756397e2d574cf?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=e_space+meditation+right+track+shi#eb756397e2d574cf

imo, the only way to recognize or find 'god' is with eyes closed and

welcome mat out. i think you are on the right track with meditation. i

dont believe anything you read will bring you any closer to
understanding or knowing 'god'.

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thread/eea93dbbc91e1bc7/04d951b5f3940ecc?hl=en#04d951b5f3940ecc

this concept is absolutely scoffed at
by most here, or simply not commented on. its sorta like nobody has
heard of, or contemplated, meditation, and this kinda boggles my mind.


------------------------------------------------------------
--

[Chuck]

Observer wrote:
> Please explain "metaphysical journey" in as much as the search for god
> is fruitless. Such (this fictive god thing) provides not one iota of
> scientifically verifiable substantiating data for its existence or any
> act thereof in or on this/these universe(s) the concept of theology is
> suddenly transformed into the study of nothing and this god thing is
> the the nothing which is thereby studied.

A metaphysical journey is my own term denoting those private moments
of contemplation where one reflects upon the important questions of
his or her existence, which, as it happens, is not covered in our
science classes: What are we? Why are we here? Where are we going?
How should we get there? Will our actions have any cosmic
significance? And so on. Of course, atheists hubristically believe
that their worldview (and, as I've shown, it is a worldview) is the
answer to all of the important questions, though I dare say that their
testimony does not seem to be credible given that most of the atheists
I encounter online or otherwise have, under the auspices of their
uninformed presupposition that philosophy and theology are useless,
never even opened a philosophy or theology book. As such, they are
unable to even accurately represent the other side, supplanting civil
discourse will jejune incantations such as "God is fictitious", "There
is no scientific evidence for God", "God is morally wicked", etc.

> > Very good , for a christian.

See? I can accurately represent the opposing side. You obviously
cannot. That's fine. More than likely, I also don't believe in the
God that you don't believe in. Otherwise, I am giving you too much
credit and you somehow hold to the idea that my understanding of God
is inconsistent with him actually existing.

> Many of us have a much broader and deeper understanding of the
> biblical, sadomasochistic, psychosis that you will ever be able to
> grasp.

Actually, I know what the Bible says and there is not a single passage
you can cite that is going to shock me. Your usage of pejoratives
with regard to what you believe to be a fictional character (e.g.
"sadomasochistic", "psychosis") tells me that your atheism is more
visceral than cerebral and that you cannot rationally defend your
position.

> I for example was raised in a loving christian home and even
> attended a christian university ( refrain from using the word educated
> as it took me years to get a useful education and to replace the utter
> stupidity of what was taught me while under their oppressive and
> rather stupid brainwashing system) It was intensive study and back to
> back readings of the bible which repulsed me and provided me the
> benefit of atheism.

In other words, the Bible did not comport with the subjective morality
that you created for yourself, so you decided to believe in something
that you were more comfortable with. This is something that I'm sure
we've all struggled with as teenagers, but fortunately many of us grow
out of this. I think it is quite embarassing that a man of your age
has not... and worse yet, you've probably passed these vices onto your
children while continuing to negatively influence your
grandchildren.

> A flash of anger cursed through my body when I read that a relative
> dimwit like you so evaluated your betters. It seems that the village
> idiot is always the one who condemns those who are capable of
> obtaining a useful education and who are putting such to proper use.

Actually, I'm not alone in my opinion about Dawkins. As much as you'd
love to believe that your time and money spent on The God Delusion was
well, the fact is that you've learned absolutely nothing. As a
biologist, he is respectable. As a philosopher, he is a layman. Even
I could defeat Dawkins in a public debate, which is why he openly
refuses to debate William Lane Craig. He would be absolutely
humiliated. This also applies to Christopher Hitchens, who, aside
from being a decent rhetorician, offers nothing by way of logical
argumentation. His book is essentially a 200+ page diatribe against
God.

These books were tailored towards uninformed individuals such as
yourself and it is no surprise that you are taken in by them. They
are easy to understand and push the appropriate emotional buttons.
But then they also give people the false impression that their
arguments are sophisticated, which gives disciples the impression that
they are sophisticated by virtue of having read the books.

> All irrefutable and apothegmatic.

I could refute them in a few sentences and I'm not even a
professional.

> Once again the village idiot laughs at that which he can not
> understand.

I understand them perfectly. Again, much of the drivel that you
propagate on this forum is not at all daring or original. It has been
addressed ad nauseum by theists.

> You my stupid friend can not correct the intelligence which sub-stands
> the refusal to believe that for which no scientifically verifiable
> substantiating data exists proving either the EXISTENCE of or any ACT
> of your dumb ass  a god.

Allow me to point out a few relevant facts here before we continue:

(1) I am neither stupid nor am I your friend. Even if I was an
atheist, I would not be your friend as I can assure you that whatever
worldview I take, I will take it for rational reasons. As an atheist,
I would distance myself from atheists who have stupid reasons for
being an atheist. I think it is also important to note that academia
is much different now than it was when you were a young lad watching
Howdy Doody on TV. Back then, it meant a lot to have a Bachelor's
Degree, $20k per year was a decent salary, and the surge of interest
in natural theology had not arrived. Times have changed, you have not
kept up.

(2) The assertion that there is no scientifically verifiable
substantiating data for the existence of God is a positive assertion.
I would like your scientifically verifiable substantiating data for
the fact that there is no such data for the existence of God, either
here on Earth or in the outer reaches of the Andromeda galaxy. If you
cannot provide such data, then I am going to use your own metric
against you and argue that your purported truth of the initial premise
is utter BS.

(3) Natural science itself cannot provide evidence of God because God
is excluded by their methodology. Accordingly, metaphysical
explanations for natural phenomena are not allowed. Furthermore, God
is not a physical being and is therefore not a proper subject for
scientiic inquiry. You may well argue that scientific inquiry is the
only provider of truth, but this is absolutely false when you consider
that the truth of mathematics, logic, and history does not stand or
fall upon the scientific method.

>  That which can not be studied by the application of scientific method
> and which allows for no scientifically verifiable data as to its
> existence or which provides for accurate prognostications as to
> contingent and future events is irrelevant  nonexistent or both.

Okay. What scientific study has confirmed your assertion that that

which can not be studied by the application of scientific method and
which allows for no scientifically verifiable data as to its existence
or which provides for accurate prognostications as to contingent and

future events is irrelevant, nonexistent or both?

Furthermore, if what you say is true, then what do you do with
mathetical truths such as the Pythagorean Theorem, Bayes Theorem, the
set of natural numbers, Gauss-Jordan method, set theory, etc.? What
do you do with logical truths such as the law of non-contradiction,
the principle of bivalence, the law of identity, universal/existential
instantiation, modal axiom S5, etc.? What do you do with the
historical existence of Alexander the Great, Socrates, Plato, Diodorus
Cronus, Philo, Pericles, etc.?

> To quote one of the most profound thinkers this world has ever known
> is Steven Hawking.

Stephen Hawking is a physicist. Since when are physicists the go-to
men for metaphysical issues? That's like an astrophysicist telling
you how to properly bake a cake.

Here is what William Lane Craig has to say with regard to Stephen
Hawking:

"The professional philosopher can only roll his eyes at the effrontery
and condescension of such a statement. Two scientists who have, to all
appearances, little acquaintance with philosophy are prepared to
pronounce an entire discipline dead and to insult their own faculty
colleagues in philosophy at Cal Tech and Cambridge University, many of
whom, like Michael Redhead and D. H. Mellor, are eminent philosophers
of science, for supposedly failing to keep up. I couldn’t help but
wonder what evidence our intrepid authors have of Mr. Redhead’s
laggard scholarship? What recent works in philosophy have they read
that form the basis for their verdict? Alas, they do not say."

"The professional philosopher will regard their verdict as not merely
condescending but also as outrageously naïve. The man who claims to
have no need of philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it. One
might therefore anticipate that Mlodinow and Hawking’s subsequent
exposition of their favored theories will be underpinned by a host of
unexamined philosophical presuppositions. That expectation is, in
fact, borne out. Like their claims about the origin of the universe
from “nothing” or about the Many Worlds Hypothesis to explain fine
tuning, their claims about laws of nature, the possibility of
miracles, scientific determinism, and the illusion of free will are
asserted with only the thinnest of justification and little
understanding of the philosophical issues involved."

> You will find your self looking the fool to everyone
> with a brain and a useful education.

That pretty much excludes myself looking foolish to you, doesn't it?

> Why should anyone believe the hideous
> superstitious filth of the bible or for that matter why should anyone
> believe that such as a god thing (which can not even be defined ).

Feel free to check the Google records for my presentation of the modal
ontological argument. Nobody was able to respond to it due to my
usage of standard logical notation, which your friends were unfamiliar
with due to them not being education in logic.

> Give us only compelling arguments and provide scientifically
> verifiable data to back them up.

If you want me to defend my position, then you are not to restrict
what I can and cannot say. "Compelling" is subjective and I do not
accept that evidence has to be scientific in order to be sufficient.

> I personally wish you well but I detest the psychotic superstitious
> filth that has stolen your mind and even your humanity.

I really do not care what you think.

[TLC]

Richard Dawkins: If Science Worked Like Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYigmGyN2RQ&feature=related

‘Imagine, that there is a well-organised and well-financed group of
nutters, implacably convinced that the Roman Empire never existed.
Hadrian’s Wall, Verulamium, Pompeii — Rome itself — are all planted
fakes. The Latin language, for all its rich literature and its Romance
language grandchildren, is a Victorian fabrication. The Rome deniers
are, no doubt, harmless wingnuts, more harmless than the Holocaust
deniers whom they resemble. Smile and be tolerant, just as we smile at
the Flat Earth Society. But your tolerance might wear thin if you
happen to be a lifelong scholar and teacher of Roman history, language
or literature. You suddenly find yourself obliged to interrupt your
magnum opus on the Odes of Horace in order to devote time and effort
to rebutting a well-financed propaganda campaign claiming that the
entire classical world that you love never existed.' Dawkins

Actually, Dawkins does not refuse to debate with William Lane Craig,
he refuses to debate with, and give them a platform, creationists. I
think "logical argumentation" for you is discarding all science and
accepting a Sky Fairy exists. But, only if it's your Sky Fairy!

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

On 20 November 2010 23:16, Chuck <chuck...@comcast.net> wrote:

> To quote one of the most profound thinkers this world has ever known
> is Steven Hawking.

Stephen Hawking is a physicist.  Since when are physicists the go-to
men for metaphysical issues?  That's like an astrophysicist telling
you how to properly bake a cake.

"God exists" is not a philosophical or metaphysical statement.

"God exists" is a scientific statement about the universe and as such it must be subject to the same tests as any other statements of the form "<noun> exists".

Since it is a statement about the universe and lays claim to explaining the origins of the universe then Dr. Hawking and other physicists are very much the right persons to refer to.



--
Musique.

http://atw.koolhost.com/music.htm

http://www.facebook.com/simon.ewins

http://reverbnation.com/simonewins

http://youtube.com/sjewins

[Chuck]

TLC wrote:
> Actually, Dawkins does not refuse to debate with William Lane Craig,
> he refuses to debate with, and give them a platform, creationists.   I
> think "logical argumentation" for you is discarding all science and
> accepting a Sky Fairy exists.  But, only if it's your Sky Fairy!

Far be it for atheists to make statements without doing any fact
checking:

"Dr. Dawkins would be happy to debate a bishop, cardinal, Pope, but he
won’t debate creationists. What does he think that bishops, cardinals,
and Popes are? They are overwhelmingly creationists. And he does
debate creation in his books, he just won’t do it in person with the
object of his debate in the form of an actual person in William Lane
Craig. His word processor doesn’t talk back when he debates creation
in writing his books. But He did debate John Lennox, who is, at least,
an advocate of Intelligent Design (which he considers to be another
form of creation)."

"Lennox may be an outright creationist, I don’t know, but Dr. Dawkins
doesn’t differentiate between creation and ID, so it makes no
difference, he is a creationist in Dr. Dawkins’ eyes. And secondly,
Dr. Craig’s “claim to fame” is not in mere debate, it is in academic
philosophy and Christian apologetics; the fact that he is masterful at
debate is secondary and only occurs as a result of him being a
professional philosopher and Christian apologist. Why the evasion?
Really? Why?"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/

Video: "William Lane Craig is NOT a creationist"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7WNzoiUAe8

[Bob T.]

On Nov 21, 5:18 am, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> TLC wrote:
> > Actually, Dawkins does not refuse to debate with William Lane Craig,
> > he refuses to debate with, and give them a platform, creationists.   I
> > think "logical argumentation" for you is discarding all science and
> > accepting a Sky Fairy exists.  But, only if it's your Sky Fairy!
>
> Far be it for atheists to make statements without doing any fact
> checking:
>
> "Dr. Dawkins would be happy to debate a bishop, cardinal, Pope, but he
> won’t debate creationists. What does he think that bishops, cardinals,

> and Popes are? They are overwhelmingly creationists. ]

Well, no. In common parlance, a "creationist" is somebody who
believes in the literal truth of Genesis or other religious account of
creation. The Pope is not a creationist - he does not believe that
Genesis is literally true. Believing that God created the universe
somehow a very long time ago does not make one a "creationist", it
makes one a "theist".

- Bob T

> And he does
> debate creation in his books, he just won’t do it in person with the
> object of his debate in the form of an actual person in William Lane
> Craig. His word processor doesn’t talk back when he debates creation
> in writing his books. But He did debate John Lennox, who is, at least,
> an advocate of Intelligent Design (which he considers to be another
> form of creation)."
>
> "Lennox may be an outright creationist, I don’t know, but Dr. Dawkins
> doesn’t differentiate between creation and ID, so it makes no
> difference, he is a creationist in Dr. Dawkins’ eyes. And secondly,
> Dr. Craig’s “claim to fame” is not in mere debate, it is in academic
> philosophy and Christian apologetics; the fact that he is masterful at
> debate is secondary and only occurs as a result of him being a
> professional philosopher and Christian apologist. Why the evasion?
> Really? Why?"
>

> http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoide...

[Chuck]

Simon Ewins wrote:
> "God exists" is not a philosophical or metaphysical statement.
>
> "God exists" is a scientific statement about the universe and as such it
> must be subject to the same tests as any other statements of the form
> "<noun> exists".

Of course, it would be convenient for you if it was possible to divest
the existential assertion of God of all its
metaphysical underpinnings. Then it would be easy for you to subsume
the question under a category in which
the question could be answered in a simple way. Unfortunately, this
does not even begin to do justice to the practice
and methodology of natural theology and is remiss in its
inconsideration of the practices of academia in the 21st
century.

Fortunately, you clearly do not understand the question, otherwise you
would not have made the statement that the
existential statement of God's existence is a statement about the
universe. It actually is not. The very notion of God,
at least as understood in Christianity (and this is Atheism vs.
Christianity, right?) speaks of a being who is not a product
of physical reality, under which the universe is categorized.
Therefore, the existence of such a being cannot be a
question answered by any methodology whose application is restricted
to the operations of the physical world. Furthermore,
if God is the creator of the universe, and the laws of nature are
predicated of the universe, then God could not have used
any laws of nature to bring the universe into being. The process of
creation would have been a supernatural process.

Your original statement actually commits what Greg Bahsen called the
"crackers in the pantry fallacy". Read up:

"The assumption that all existence claims are questions about matters
of fact, the assumption that all of these are
answered in the very same way is not only over simplified and
misleading, it is simply mistaken. The existence,
factuality or reality of different kinds of things is not established
or disconfirmed in the same way in every case.
We might ask , "Is there a box of crackers in the pantry?" And we know
how we would go about answering that
question. But that is a far, far cry from the way we go about
answering questions determining the reality of say,
barometric pressure, quasars, gravitational attraction, elasticity,
radio activity, natural laws, names, grammar,
numbers, the university itself that you're now at, past events,
categories, future contingencies, laws of thought,
political obligations, individual identity over time, causation,
memories, dreams, or even love or beauty. In such cases,
one does not do anything like walk to the pantry and look inside for
the crackers. There are thousands of existence or
factual questions, and they are not at all answered in the same way in
each case."

Some more interesting resources for you:

"There remains the obvious question: By what standards might we
determine that faith in science is reasonable, but
that faith in God is not? It may well be that 'religious faith', as
the philosopher Robert Todd Carroll has written, 'is
contrary to the sum of evidence', but if religious faith is found
wanting, it is reasonable to ask for a restatement of the
rules by which 'the sum of evidence' is computed. Like the Ten
Commandments, they are difficult to obey but easy to
forget. I have forgotten them already. Perhaps this is because there
are no such rules. The concept of sufficient
evidence is infinitely elastic. It depends on context (The Devil's
Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions by
David Berlinski, p. 48)."

"By contrast, according to Aquinas, our proofs of the existence of God
do not depend on the truth of some p
articular scientific theory; they follow from the mere existence of
change, causation, contingent beings, or whatever,
however these things are ultimately explained by science (First
Philosophy: Fundamental Problems and Readings in
Philosophy by Andrew Bailey, p. 41)"

[Chuck]

"Bob T." wrote:
> Well, no.  In common parlance, a "creationist" is somebody who
> believes in the literal truth of Genesis or other religious account of
> creation.  The Pope is not a creationist - he does not believe that
> Genesis is literally true.  Believing that God created the universe
> somehow a very long time ago does not make one a "creationist", it
> makes one a "theist".

Thank you. So why do you think he refuses to debate William Lane
Craig? Does it have anything to do with the fact that if he did, then
he'd get humiliated?

[Simon Ewins]

On 21 November 2010 08:53, Chuck <chuck...@comcast.net> wrote:

Simon Ewins wrote:
> "God exists" is not a philosophical or metaphysical statement.
>
> "God exists" is a scientific statement about the universe and as such it
> must be subject to the same tests as any other statements of the form
> "<noun> exists".

Of course, it would be convenient for you if it was possible to divest
the existential assertion of God of all its
metaphysical underpinnings.

There are none. The existence of God is a statement about the universe, not a metaphysical statement.

Metaphysics is simply a way for theists to try to hide from their failure to be able to support their assertions as they should.

Metaphysical claims for God are no more than obfuscation as an aid to intellectual cowardice.

[Chuck]

Simon Ewins wrote:
>
> There are none. The existence of God is a statement about the universe, not
> a metaphysical statement.

Wow. Did I really just write an entire post explaining why the
existential proposition of God is a metaphysical judgment, only to
have it get dismissed with a simple handwave, a simple assertion with
absolutely no qualifications or justifications whatsoever?

Is that what passes as a good argument to you? Just repeating what
you said after someone explains succintly why you are wrong?

> Metaphysics is simply a way for theists to try to hide from their failure to
> be able to support their assertions as they should.

Okay. Then what do you say to all of the atheists who practice
metaphysics, such as Bertrand Russell, David Hume, Quentin Smith,
Graham Oppy, Daniel Denett, and so on?

Are they also practicing metaphysics so as to hide their inability to
support their assertions?

> Metaphysical claims for God are no more than obfuscation as an aid to
> intellectual cowardice.

And how do you justify this? What is your source here? I'm just
curious because I'd love to know what published material exists which
says this.