Stategies for dealing with Atheists
AJ
by Ron Rhodes
No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as
they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some
may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that
God does not exist.
When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical
problems inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in showing an
atheist the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main claims and
arguments, you are in a much better position to share the gospel with
him. Let us consider two prime examples here.
(1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is
no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this
assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be
omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of
knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being
in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that
is in the universe - can make such a statement based on the facts. To
put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say
there is no God.
This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist if he
has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. Mention
that the library presently contains over 70 million items (books,
magazines, journals, etc.). Also point out that hundreds of thousands
of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various
academic fields. Then ask the following question: "What percentage of
the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would
you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?" The
atheist will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one
percent." You can then ask: "Do you think it is logically possible
that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of
knowledge and experience?" Even if the atheist refuses to admit the
possibility, you have made your point and he knows it.
(2) "I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the
world." Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof
that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I know there
is no God because if He existed, He never would have let Hitler murder
six million Jews."
A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this
effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to
prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by
what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not
to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?" The
atheist may hedge and say: "I just know that some things are evil.
It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he
tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to
face the illogical foundation of his belief system.
After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it
is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite
reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat
at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no
way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference
point of the compass needle).
The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can
only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the
definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are
no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or
someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist,
there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this
light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God,
rather than disproving it.
At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in
fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the
world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out that God is
dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. The false
assumption on the part of the atheist is that God's only choice is to
deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is dealing
with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the
future, Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold
all men and women accountable for the things they did during their
time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter
eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will
understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of
evil.
If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take all of human history
for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond
by saying: "Ok. Let's do it your way. Hypothetically speaking, let's
say that at this very moment, God declared that all evil in the world
will now simply cease to exist. Every human being on the planet -
present company included - would simply vanish into oblivion. Would
this solution be preferable to you?"
The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available.
He may even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that
man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. This idea can be
countered by pointing out that such a scenario would mean that man is
no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices.
This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in
programmed ways.
If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to
the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five
minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does
not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature
(e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in
some way. After five minutes, ask him what he came up with. Don't
expect much of an answer.
Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief
system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his
claims, share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in
Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps
through your witness and prayers his faith in atheism will be
overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.
Dr Ron Rhodes
DavidH
by Dr Samuel Vimes
No one is born an Christian. People choose to become Christians as much as
they choose anything else. No matter how strenuously some may try to deny
it, their Christianity rests on their choice alone.
When dialoguing with Christians, it is helpful to point out the logical
problems inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in showing an
Christian the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main claims and
arguments, you are in a much better position to share the truth with
him. Let us consider two prime examples here.
(1) "There is an all powerful God." Some christians categorically state that
there is an all powerful God, and all Christians, by definition, believe it.
And yet,
this assertion is logically indefensible. The whole concept of a being who
can do
anything is illogical. If it could do anything, it could in fact do
something that was self contradictory, and this is of course impossible
logically. To put it another way, it is logically impossible for anything or
anyone to be all powerful, unless they don't exist.
(2) "I believe that Jesus was the Son of God."
Many Christians consider that Jesus was fully human and fully God at the
same time. They say something like, "He was not 50% God and 50% human, but
100% God and 100% human."
A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this
effect: "Can a glass be 200% full? If Jesus was fully God, there is no way
he could also be fully human, since by your definition being God is so much
more than being human." The Christian may then say something like "I don't
know how it was possible, I just know it happened."
Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he
tell you how Jesus could be 2 contrary things at the same time. He must be
forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief system.
After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that an all
powerful God is doing a pretty poor job of looking after the world or even
the Church. Point out to him that the world is a pretty suckful place to
live and that there are a number of simple changes you could think of making
that would make life better for everyone. Also make the point that according
to modern Christians the church went off the rails for hundreds of years,
and ask him how this could have happened if God was looking after his
people.
At this point, the christian may raise the objection that God does in
fact exist, and is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive
way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is that God's only
choice is to
deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is dealing
with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the
future, Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold
all men and women accountable for the things they did during their
time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter
eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will
understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of
evil. This is of course a poor excuse for a being who can do anything.
Surely
a wisdom far greater than ours could resolve the problem instantly even if
we cannot think of a way?
Now than the Christian has brought it up, it is time to point out another
problem with Christianity; its injustice. Christians believe that God is
totally just, yet they also believe that people who don't believe in him
will be subject to eternal torment. If they are right, this will happen even
to people who have done the best they can to be moral. Point out that the
level of punishment does not fit the crime, which in the case of many
unbelievers, would be nothing more than an honest mistake in evaluating
evidence.
Point out that no amount of evil perpetrated in a finite amount of time on
earth could justify an infinite amount of punishment.
Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the Christian's belief
system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his
claims, share with him some of the logical possibilities when we stop
looking for non-existent outside help and start trying to fix things up
ourselves. Maybe through your friendship and reasoning he will give up his
hopeless beliefs and become a useful member of society.
Dr Samuel Vimes
:)
Dave#
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
Aaron Dodd
: No one is born an atheist.
On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
religious belief.
: People choose to become atheists as much as
: they choose to become Christians.
What of people who have never had any religious experience or observed any
evidence that there exists a god? How can you say that they have faith
when they say that there appears to be no god? Presumably you believe that
it also requires faith to deny the existance of Santa Claus and the Easter
Bunny.
: When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical
: problems inherent in their belief system.
Which of course is completely impossible because, as noted before, atheism
is not a belief system. When someone identifies themselves as an atheist,
they're telling you what they don't believe. They are not, however,
telling you what they do believe.
: (1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is
: no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this
: assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be
: omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of
: knowledge that there is no God.
This is untrue. Theists commonly assert that their god has certain
properties. If it can be shown through logical argument that these
properties are internally contradictory or impossible, then it can be
concluded that god doesn't exist without recourse to omniscience.
: A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this
: effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to
: prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by
: what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not
: to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?" The
: atheist may hedge and say: "I just know that some things are evil.
: It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he
: tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to
: face the illogical foundation of his belief system.
The notion that some modes of behaviour are unacceptable (ie could be
considered "evil") does not require a god. Simply put, the benefits of
living in a society are threatened by things like murder, theft and rape.
Therefore such things are "evil".
The notion that morality is handed down by some omni-everything superdude
is basically equivalent to "might makes right". Whatever god decrees to be
good is good because god says it is. Being one of his weak creations, who
are you to argue? Such a system for morality is obviously weak because it
is completely arbitrary (god could change his mind) and because no one
knows what god really wants (Roger Waters excluded) anyway.
: Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief
: system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his
: claims, share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in
: Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps
: through your witness and prayers his faith in atheism will be
: overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.
If a christian were to convince an atheist that there really is god then
the next step would be for the christian to establish that their
particular religion (and ultimately that their particular interpretation)
is correct and that all other contradictory religions are wrong. Given
that all religions pretty much claim to be the "one truth" and have pretty
much the same amount of supporting evidence (ie not much), this could be
an uphill battle.
a...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au "Too scared
http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/acd/ and too good
Mechanical and Materials Engineering looking, I cried."
University of Western Australia #85 Roger Waters
Mike Hore
AJ wrote in message <35f27dcc...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>"Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists"
>by Ron Rhodes
This stuff makes me wonder how many intelligent atheists Ron Rhodes
has ever had discussions with. But hey, let's not listen to what the
other side is actually saying -- then there'd be danger of having a
serious discussion!! We mustn't let that happen around here!!!
Oh well, I think the comments of the putative Dr Samuel Vimes
are very appropriate.
Cheers, Mike.
Bradley Gouldson
>Many Christians consider that Jesus was fully human and fully God at the
>same time. They say something like, "He was not 50% God and 50% human, but
>100% God and 100% human."
Man is made of three parts: body, soul and spirit. Jesus was man because
even though He has God's spirit He also had a body and a soul.
--
Regards,
Bradley Gouldson (1356....@bigfoot.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
CORE HR Systems - Total human resource solutions.
http://www.hrsystems.com.au
Quake2 Antics - Quake2 antics, articles and files.
http://www.bigfoot.com/~antics
heb...@ibm.net
>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
>
>: No one is born an atheist.
>
>On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
>suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
>religious belief.
>
being a baby?
heb...@ibm.net
>when they say that there appears to be no god? Presumably you believe that
>it also requires faith to deny the existance of Santa Claus and the Easter
>Bunny.
>
all the facts? Guesswork? Presumption?
AJ
>In <6sid4p$jpu$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, a...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Aaron Dodd) writes:
>>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
No..Dr Ron Rhodes wrote.
>>: No one is born an atheist.
>>
>>On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
>>suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
>>religious belief.
>>
>Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
>being a baby?
Are you talking to me (AJ) or the Author Ron Rhodes.?
AJ
Aaron Dodd
: >On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
: >suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
: >religious belief.
: >
: Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
: being a baby?
A pathetically cheap shot coming from someone who believes in an invisible
big buddy in the sky. Most children eventually grow out of believing in
invisible friends. Strange that christians never do.
Aaron Dodd
: Are you talking to me (AJ) or the Author Ron Rhodes.?
For practical purposes it makes no difference. You posted his stuff so
presumably you agree with it.
AJ
>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
>
>: Are you talking to me (AJ) or the Author Ron Rhodes.?
>
>For practical purposes it makes no difference. You posted his stuff so
>presumably you agree with it.
Bad logic Aaron.
Where do you guys get your power of reason from?
AJ
>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
Again Aaron...AJ copied this from the net.
They are not my words..or necessarily my thoughts on the subject.
My thoughts are that Christianity is a belief system that you are
pre-elected into.You are born with the ability to believe in Jesus
Christ .It is in you or it is not. You are chosen or not chosen in
eternity well past.
You may be..you just have not found out yet.
I will attempt to answer some of your comments as you are a fellow
sandgroper. Also my best friends are Atheists.
>: No one is born an atheist.
>
>On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
>suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
>religious belief.
The actual word Atheism...means "No God"..
Atheism is an open and positive denial of the existence of God.
I disagree that all are born Atheists..Also that no one is born an
Atheist. Some are... some arn't..in the predestination sense I have
described.
All are predestined to believe ...they therefore will.
>: People choose to become atheists as much as
>: they choose to become Christians.
Do not agree....People are pre-elected in Eternity Past.
A long time ago that..can't quite get my mind around that one.
Eternity past I mean.
>What of people who have never had any religious experience or observed any
>evidence that there exists a god? How can you say that they have faith
>when they say that there appears to be no god? Presumably you believe that
>it also requires faith to deny the existance of Santa Claus and the Easter
>Bunny.
I would agree on the basis of your argument.
>: When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical
>: problems inherent in their belief system.
But they have not got one.
>Which of course is completely impossible because, as noted before, atheism
>is not a belief system. When someone identifies themselves as an atheist,
>they're telling you what they don't believe. They are not, however,
>telling you what they do believe.
I agree Aaron.
>: (1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is
>: no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this
>: assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be
>: omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of
>: knowledge that there is no God.
>
>This is untrue. Theists commonly assert that their god has certain
>properties. If it can be shown through logical argument that these
>properties are internally contradictory or impossible, then it can be
>concluded that god doesn't exist without recourse to omniscience.
Well God is a Spirit..different rules do apply.
Logic is not one of them.
>: A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this
>: effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to
>: prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by
>: what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not
>: to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?" The
>: atheist may hedge and say: "I just know that some things are evil.
>: It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he
>: tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to
>: face the illogical foundation of his belief system.
Can't really see the point of this one.
>: Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief
>: system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his
>: claims, share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in
>: Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps
>: through your witness and prayers his faith in atheism will be
>: overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.
I think he is on the wrong track.
>If a christian were to convince an atheist that there really is god then
>the next step would be for the christian to establish that their
>particular religion (and ultimately that their particular interpretation)
>is correct and that all other contradictory religions are wrong. Given
>that all religions pretty much claim to be the "one truth" and have pretty
>much the same amount of supporting evidence (ie not much), this could be
>an uphill battle.
I think a better way for you Aaron is to look at Bible Prophesy.
What was prophesied and what happened.
Some quite remarkable things have been foreseen.
Even events in this century that have happened that people have been
able to anticipate from the word ..before they actually happened.
People on this ng know a lot about this subject and would be glad to
help I am sure.
Regards AJ
PS who is Roger Waters ?
heb...@ibm.net
>On 2 Sep 1998 05:30:52 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>>In <6sid4p$jpu$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, a...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Aaron Dodd) writes:
>>>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
>
>No..Dr Ron Rhodes wrote.
>
>>>
>>>On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
>>>suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
>>>religious belief.
>>>
>>being a baby?
>
>
I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
an atheist."
The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
The question is, once born, does one "advance."
The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
raises the question of whether atheists never advance
beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
They never perform research with regard to the
existence of God.
They never search for truth with regard to the
existence of God.
They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
the existence of God.
They remain in the same state the were born, as
ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>: >On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
>: >suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
>: >religious belief.
>: >
>: Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
>: being a baby?
>
>big buddy in the sky. Most children eventually grow out of believing in
>invisible friends. Strange that christians never do.
>
recent post putting forth the reasoning behind such
a question.
This is EXACTLY the argument the atheist puts forth,
"we remain ignorant."
AJ
>In <35edf00d...@news.wantree.com.au>, p...@wantree.com.au (AJ) writes:
>>On 2 Sep 1998 05:30:52 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>>>In <6sid4p$jpu$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, a...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Aaron Dodd) writes:
>>>>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
>>
>>No..Dr Ron Rhodes wrote.
>>
>>>>: No one is born an atheist.
>>>>
>>>>On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
>>>>suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
>>>>religious belief.
>>>>
>>>Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
>>>being a baby?
>>
>>Are you talking to me (AJ) or the Author Ron Rhodes.?
>>AJ
>>
>I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
>an atheist."
Dr Ron Rhodes.
He is not listening ..he is in America.
I may attempt an answer ..although I do not agree with his approaches
to Atheists.
>The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
Ignorance of God? In a conscious sense yes.
>Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
Ignorant of God in a conscious sense..everyone is at Birth.
>The question is, once born, does one "advance."
To where? belief in God I suppose.
Some do as is the will and plan of God.
>The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
It is a poor argument IMHO.
Yours is developing better.
>The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
Knowledge of who God is supposed to be? ..then yes.
Belief in God...no.
They would not then be Atheists.
>They never perform research with regard to the
>existence of God.
Agreed Scott. I think you could help here..from a prophesy POV.
However I doubt if any are seriously interested or have enough
motivation with respect to attention span.
Give them an example.
But let them ask first.
>They never search for truth with regard to the
>existence of God.
Agreed to a point.But most are looking for reasons to deny that god
exists..they stop when they think they have found one..and give
themselves a pat on the back.which is strange. As a Christian should
I be looking for reasons why God does not exist ?.Don't think so.. it
is a belief system...I am a believer not a doubting Thomas..
>They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>the existence of God.
They do.. they conclude that God does not exist.. before they look at
the evidence.
>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
True.
AJ
AJ
>In <6sj7ic$ufn$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, a...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Aaron Dodd) writes:
>>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>>: >On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
>>: >suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
>>: >religious belief.
>>: >
>>: Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
>>: being a baby?
>>
>>A pathetically cheap shot coming from someone who believes in an invisible
>>big buddy in the sky. Most children eventually grow out of believing in
>>invisible friends. Strange that christians never do.
>>
>Hardly a cheap shot. Read and respond to my most
>recent post putting forth the reasoning behind such
>a question.
>
>This is EXACTLY the argument the atheist puts forth,
>"we remain ignorant."
Good point Scott.
They wish to remain ignorant.
Bible knowledge is always limited to cliches.
However I do not find this strange.
God chooses us..we don't choose him.
AJ
AJ
<ipaa...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>To be honest, people in infancy tend to believe anything they are told.. but
>atheists grow over this phase, theists don't. I.e. theists are still in
>infancy with regards to beliefs.
Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
Very often having believed..Christians move on to the "meat"
of the word of God...off the "milk". They don't have to.
This is where Scott is at. He no doubt could relate to you prophecies
that had come true that are written in the Bible.Would you listen?
>In any case, you make me nauseous with your hateful babble.
>
>++Iikka
Likka I think you have completely missed the point of this post.
I can in no way see it as nauseous..or hateful babble.
I am amazed how you can read it like that.
I think you had a knee-jerk programmed Atheist response.
AJ
>
>
Chris Peterson
<snip>
> I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
> an atheist."
Many people have written this.
> The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
Ignorant of religion? Sure.
Ignorant of Santa? Sure.
Ignorant of hunger? Nope.
Ignorant of pain? Nope.
> Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
No.
> The question is, once born, does one "advance."
Yes, but do you mean advance by learning about many different
things, or sticking with the first one you read or are
taught?
> The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
> raises the question of whether atheists never advance
> beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
Which god? If you were born and raised in China, would
you most likely still believe in the christian god?
You seem to be implying that you are absolutely sure
that you have chosen to believe in the one true god.
> The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
> remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
Many atheists have done a whole lot more research on
all the different religions than many christians have.
Why did you stick to your current beliefs? Because
they make the most sense to you?
> They never perform research with regard to the
> existence of God.
Hogwash.
> They never search for truth with regard to the
> existence of God.
The truth is perfectly clear. Gods don't exist.
They are figments of man's imagination, and a comfort
factor for most religious people.
> They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
> the existence of God.
What?
> They remain in the same state the were born, as
> ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
Please rethink the above statement.
> Scott
--
Chris Peterson #1075
Chris Peterson
> Jim Cheesman <mog...@arrakis.es> wrote:
> >Unlike the thought out and radically different christian response you
> >blessed us with, I suppose.
> Orthodox Christians do not have radically different responses.
> They have Dogma.
Thought out dogma? Or just regurgitated?
> That is what it is about.If you want highly intellectual conversation..
> go somewhere else.
> AJ
Are you saying you aren't capable of an intellectual conversation?
--
Chris Peterson #1075
Chris Peterson
> Chris Peterson wrote:
> >> They never perform research with regard to the
> >> existence of God.
> >Hogwash.
> OK lets call you on this one...
> What research have you specifically carried out.?
Enough to realize that christianity is not any more believable
to me than any other religion is.
I could present many things which prove christianity is nothing
more than a religion which was built on previous ones. There's
nothing particularly special about it, except the fact that it
tended to absorb some pagan beliefs early on, and later on
politics got involved in the whole spreading of it.
Let me ask you why you are convinced that your current religious
belief is the correct one? Have you had some mystical experience
which you attribute to a god? Or are you merely following what you
were brought up to believe?
Care to give a list of prayers of yours that have been answered?
--
Chris Peterson #1075
Michael Koch
>
>
> raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>
> The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
> remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>
> existence of God.
I once PCR'ed god off the Salmonella enteriditis subvar thypimurium LT2
chromosome. But I lost the clone. Bring on the cross!
> They never search for truth with regard to the
> existence of God.
Think so?
> They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
> the existence of God.
Doubt it.
> They remain in the same state the were born, as
> ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
I'm the babeee! Godsa love me! Pffftz!
I agree, Dinosaurs were around for a short time only.
Ref: http://us.imdb.com/Title?%22Dinosaurs%22+(1991)
Jim Sarbeck
A response to:
In article <35f27dcc...@news.wantree.com.au>, p...@wantree.com.au (AJ)
wrote:
>"Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists"
>by Ron Rhodes
>... atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.
Not believing something is true is different that believing something is
not true. When you know the difference you will understand more about
atheism.
>... If you succeed in showing an
>atheist the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main claims and
>arguments, you are in a much better position to share the gospel with
>him.
Atheists as atheists make no claims or arguments. People who happen to be
atheists make all sort of claims. Learn the difference.
> Let us consider two prime examples here.
>(1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is
>no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it.
Untrue, dare I say, a lie. Here we shall see: (American Heritage
Dictionary) Atheist: One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or
gods.- Disbelieve (intransitive) To withhold or reject belief. If you don't
know that "Disbelieve in God' is an intransitive construction, it's back to
school for you. To withold belife in X is not the same as to say X is
untrue.
The rest of this point is therefore a 'Straw Man Fallacy'.
>And yet, this
>assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be
>omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of
>knowledge that there is no God.
Atheists as atheists do not claim that. Some people who are atheists may
claim that, but it is from something other thatn atheism that they do so.
>(2) "I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the
>world."
The rational atheist position is this: the existence of an omnibenevolent,
omnipotent deity is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. So,
any theology that posits all three (omnipotence, omnibenevolence and evil)
is logically impossible. Take your pick which one to delete, but deleting
logic makes life irrational. Deleting the recognition of evil (which is
recognized by theism!) makes life amoral; you be the judge of this. So, for
all but the irrational or amoral, some aspect of deity -- omnibenevolence
or omnipotence --has to be disbelieved. You get to choose.
There are irrational atheist positions as well, what you choose to believe
is your choice.
>After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it
>is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite
>reference point which is absolutely good.
'Infinite' is a word you might ask for the theist to explain in fine
detail. Explore the issues of absolute versus relative morality, and whence
morality springs. There are rational theories available, although they are
not intrinsic to atheism.
> Otherwise one is like a boat
>at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no
>way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference
>point of the compass needle).
Explore the value of argument from analogy. It's zero -- on either side of
the argument.
>Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief
>system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his
>claims,
which won't be done using the above arguments,
>share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in
>Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps
>through your witness and prayers his faith in atheism will be
>overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.
Go for it!
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
Posting from Alt.Atheism. Will freely trim if > 5 ng's
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Jim Cheesman
>
> In <35edf00d...@news.wantree.com.au>, p...@wantree.com.au (AJ) writes:
> >On 2 Sep 1998 05:30:52 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
> >
> >>In <6sid4p$jpu$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, a...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Aaron Dodd) writes:
> >>>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
> >
> >No..Dr Ron Rhodes wrote.
> >
> >>>
> >>>On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
> >>>suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
> >>>religious belief.
> >>>
> >>Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
> >>being a baby?
> >
> >AJ
> >
> an atheist."
>
> The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>
> Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
>
> The question is, once born, does one "advance."
>
> The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
> raises the question of whether atheists never advance
> beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>
> The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
> remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>
> They never perform research with regard to the
> existence of God.
>
> existence of God.
>
> the existence of God.
>
> ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>
Hold on! I was born a human. Does this mean that (having not evolved
in thought) I have somehow missed out? What should I be?
--
Jim Cheesman a.a#1272 ICQ#16101534 mog...@arrakis.es
"Things cannot be other than they are... Everything is made for the best
purpose. Our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have
spectacles."
- Dr. Pangloss, from "Candide" by Voltaire
Jim Cheesman
>
> On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 02:26:18 +0300, "Iikka Paavolainen"
> <ipaa...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> >
> >To be honest, people in infancy tend to believe anything they are told.. but
> >atheists grow over this phase, theists don't. I.e. theists are still in
> >infancy with regards to beliefs.
>
> Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
> believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
> not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
> can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
Are you impying that all true christians have alzheimer's?
>
> Very often having believed..Christians move on to the "meat"
> of the word of God...off the "milk". They don't have to.
> This is where Scott is at. He no doubt could relate to you prophecies
> that had come true that are written in the Bible.Would you listen?
Which prophecies are we talking about here?
>
> >In any case, you make me nauseous with your hateful babble.
> >
> >++Iikka
> Likka I think you have completely missed the point of this post.
> I can in no way see it as nauseous..or hateful babble.
> I am amazed how you can read it like that.
> I think you had a knee-jerk programmed Atheist response.
Unlike the thought out and radically different christian response you
blessed us with, I suppose.
AJ
wrote:
>> Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
>> believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
>> not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
>> can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
>
>Are you impying that all true christians have alzheimer's?
Is this a well thought out response Jim?
You clearly have not understood.
They are foolish things to one who does not comprehend the Gospel.
I can understand... you have no understanding of things spiritual.
Why should you have.
>>
>> Very often having believed..Christians move on to the "meat"
>> of the word of God...off the "milk". They don't have to.
>> This is where Scott is at. He no doubt could relate to you prophecies
>> that had come true that are written in the Bible.Would you listen?
>Which prophecies are we talking about here?
Would you listen? was the question.
>> >In any case, you make me nauseous with your hateful babble.
>> >
>> >++Iikka
>> Likka I think you have completely missed the point of this post.
>> I can in no way see it as nauseous..or hateful babble.
>> I am amazed how you can read it like that.
>> I think you had a knee-jerk programmed Atheist response.
>Unlike the thought out and radically different christian response you
>blessed us with, I suppose.
Orthodox Christians do not have radically different responses.
They have Dogma. That is what it is about.If you want highly
intellectual conversation..go somewhere else.
AJ
>
AJ
wrote:
>> They never perform research with regard to the
>> existence of God.
>
>Hogwash.
OK lets call you on this one...
What research have you specifically carried out.?
AJ
Walksalone
Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered
the following:
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 02:26:18 +0300, "Iikka Paavolainen"
><ipaa...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>To be honest, people in infancy tend to believe anything they are told.. but
>>atheists grow over this phase, theists don't. I.e. theists are still in
>>infancy with regards to beliefs.
>
> Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
>believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
>not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
>can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
Aye, confirmation that something was lacking in your grip on the
world. Not saying bad or good, just missing. Tis sad that you have
the need, but you are not alone. Been long on this group, you would
note that the majority held a religious belief at one time, most
probably xian, never asked myself. Seems that should be an indication
that this has all been seen before, probably by some in just about a
verbatim form.
>
>Very often having believed..Christians move on to the "meat"
>of the word of God...off the "milk". They don't have to.
>This is where Scott is at. He no doubt could relate to you prophecies
Well, I've noted some of his prophesies. To be honest I was not
impressed nor did I read them the same way. Matter of fact, he just
came off a timed filter. Seems he couldn't accept that his POV might
be in error. Disremember where & who he was talking to. Maybe his
discussion technique has gotten better. Doesn't look like any basic
change so far. Still tree on shoulder. Works for him.
>that had come true that are written in the Bible.Would you listen?
>
>>In any case, you make me nauseous with your hateful babble.
>>
>>++Iikka
>Likka I think you have completely missed the point of this post.
>I can in no way see it as nauseous..or hateful babble.
>I am amazed how you can read it like that.
It was akin to a cold fish in the face, & I suspect it was meant that
way. There was no respect for any other point of view & an attempt to
denigrate the POV of others from the get go. Or is my post a knee
jerk reaction?
>I think you had a knee-jerk programmed Atheist response.
Mayhap it was a bad day & he didn't need any more effluent at this
time? Don't know, why don't you ask him. Seeing where you are
posting from, Ha' a good day mate.
>AJ
>>
>>
Hindu speaking to a Born again christian: Of course I am
born again. And again and again and again.
DavidH
AJ wrote in message <35f0cc8f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 02:26:18 +0300, "Iikka Paavolainen"
><ipaa...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>To be honest, people in infancy tend to believe anything they are told..
but
>>atheists grow over this phase, theists don't. I.e. theists are still in
>>infancy with regards to beliefs.
I hope we can move past the "you guys are childish" ... "Oh Yeah, well you
guys are *more* childish" bit of this discussion. Seems to me that there are
some decent, thinking people on both sides of the a/theist fence. I don't
think it is fair to label either entire group based on the careless posts of
a few.
> Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
>believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
>not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
>can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
This is not really the way I understand things. Christians are to have a
relational, personal trust in God that is the same as a child to a parent.
This in no way means that they can't have a reasoned, rational basis for
their belief.
I may recieve a letter proporting to be from a trusted friend. I may use all
the logical and scientific tools at my disposal to establish that it is
really from my friend. This questioning in no way reflects a lack of trust
in them personally. If I establish that the letter is what it claims, then I
will trust what it says based on my trust in my friend, which is not a
rational thing but a relational one.
This is how I see Christianity. I am a Christian because I find the evidence
for it to be compelling. This step is a logical, rational choice. Once this
choice is made, then the bits about trusting God as a child trusts a parent
come into it.
Dave#
AJ
(Walksalone) wrote:
>> Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
>>believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
>>not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
>>can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
>
>Aye, confirmation that something was lacking in your grip on the
>world.
Well you do not know me Walkalone.
I have a very good grip on the world ..I live in the real world not in
cyberspace.
>Not saying bad or good, just missing.
Wrong I have been everywhere man.
> Tis sad that you have
>the need, but you are not alone. Been long on this group, you would
>note that the majority held a religious belief at one time, most
>probably xian, never asked myself.
Don't understand that lot
Say no to drugs folks!!
>Seems that should be an indication
>that this has all been seen before, probably by some in just about a
>verbatim form.
Orthodox Christianity is Dogma.
Deja moo..heard all that bulldust before.
It is relevant here as allegorical statement.
>>Very often having believed..Christians move on to the "meat"
>>of the word of God...off the "milk".
Another allegorical statement..scriptural too.
Right over your head..Zooom.
>They don't have to.
>>This is where Scott is at. He no doubt could relate to you prophecies
>Well, I've noted some of his prophesies. To be honest I was not
>impressed nor did I read them the same way.
How could you be expected to?
I leave them alone at the moment.
I feel I would need about three years solid study to have enough
background to even approach some of the prophesy he is taklin'
>Matter of fact, he just
>came off a timed filter. Seems he couldn't accept that his POV might
>be in error. Disremember where & who he was talking to.
Disremember?
Are you Americano? si?
>Maybe his
>discussion technique has gotten better. Doesn't look like any basic
>change so far. Still tree on shoulder. Works for him.
A still tree on his shoulder.?
>>that had come true that are written in the Bible.Would you listen?
>>
>>>In any case, you make me nauseous with your hateful babble.
>>>
>>>++Iikka
>>Likka I think you have completely missed the point of this post.
>>I can in no way see it as nauseous..or hateful babble.
>>I am amazed how you can read it like that.
>
>It was akin to a cold fish in the face, & I suspect it was meant that
>way. There was no respect for any other point of view & an attempt to
>denigrate the POV of others from the get go. Or is my post a knee
>jerk reaction?
I think it is. Get rational..I thought Atheists were good at that.
Ask Scott to give you evidence of God through prophesy ..then blow him
away.
>>I think you had a knee-jerk programmed Atheist response.
>
>Mayhap it was a bad day & he didn't need any more effluent at this
>time?
Likka is a male name?
> Don't know, why don't you ask him. Seeing where you are
>posting from, Ha' a good day mate.
Lost me again ..but i'm just a thick Christian..it is not hard.
AJ
>Hindu speaking to a Born again christian: Of course I am
>born again. And again and again and again.
Good one ..jokes may be your forte.
AJ
wrote:
>
>AJ wrote in message <35f0cc8f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 02:26:18 +0300, "Iikka Paavolainen"
>><ipaa...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>To be honest, people in infancy tend to believe anything they are told..
>but
>>>atheists grow over this phase, theists don't. I.e. theists are still in
>>>infancy with regards to beliefs.
>
>
>I hope we can move past the "you guys are childish" ... "Oh Yeah, well you
>guys are *more* childish" bit of this discussion. Seems to me that there are
>some decent, thinking people on both sides of the a/theist fence. I don't
>think it is fair to label either entire group based on the careless posts of
>a few.
I hope so David but from some of the posts I doubt it frankly.
I already have been accused of having altzheimers.
>> Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
>>believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
>>not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
>>can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
David this is both an allegorical statement related to the response
and also scriptural.
Perhaps some scripture is in order.
Luk 18:16 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my
name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that
sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
Luk 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Now quoting scripture to Atheists is not fruitful..They have not the
Holy spirit indwelling to be able to comprehend.
I do not think it is a good strategy.
It is for your benefit.
>This is not really the way I understand things. Christians are to have a
>relational, personal trust in God that is the same as a child to a parent.
>This in no way means that they can't have a reasoned, rational basis for
>their belief.
This comes later.IMHO.. from the scriptures..we are made wise by
understanding the scriptures..Word of God..that is all I am saying.
First receive the Kingdom of God ..as a child in understanding..then
all will be added unto you.
>I may recieve a letter proporting to be from a trusted friend. I may use all
>the logical and scientific tools at my disposal to establish that it is
>really from my friend.
You first got your friend..Jesus.
How? Did you first rationalise that it is possible to walk through
walls? That he could feed five thousand with a few scraps?
No..of course you didn't..you believed in him..then things were added
to you.
>This questioning in no way reflects a lack of trust
>in them personally. If I establish that the letter is what it claims, then I
>will trust what it says based on my trust in my friend, which is not a
>rational thing but a relational one.
>
>This is how I see Christianity. I am a Christian because I find the evidence
>for it to be compelling. This step is a logical, rational choice. Once this
>choice is made, then the bits about trusting God as a child trusts a parent
>come into it.
Well you would be a better person to talk to an Atheist than me.
Hope you are patient.
My attitude is that Christians are chosen in eternity past.
Talk all you like to an Atheist..
I really can not see the point unless you are led to it.
I am not sure if I have been.
AJ
AJ
wrote:
>AJ wrote:
>
>> Jim Cheesman <mog...@arrakis.es> wrote:
>
>> >Unlike the thought out and radically different christian response you
>> >blessed us with, I suppose.
>
>> Orthodox Christians do not have radically different responses.
>> They have Dogma.
>
>Thought out dogma? Or just regurgitated?
Systematic Theology..but I don't like using big words.
Christianity is a belief system.
If I had to rationalise everything about it I would never have become
one.I am a classical sceptic in all things but God. I was chosen to be
a christian in eternity past.That is why I am one.
The understanding comes as you move along..little by little ..line on
line. It is a big subject..nobody will ever know all the answers in
this life.
>> That is what it is about.If you want highly intellectual conversation..
>> go somewhere else.
>> AJ
>
>Are you saying you aren't capable of an intellectual conversation?
On the contrary.But intellectual conversations are two sided.
It is difficult to discuss the "word of God" with people who do not
understand it. They can not be expected to as it is spiritually
discerned.You have to have the indwelling of the holy spirit to
understand the word of god.
Atheists can not possibly have this facility..so there is no ground
for discussing the word of God.
So what else do we do.?
Talk about how God is a beast because it is raining and I cant go to
play golf?
Except perhaps by looking at prophesy.
Things that will or have effected Atheists.
I have called on Scott to give a good example.
I think it is the ONLY strategy for Atheists.
It is not my field.
AJ
AJ
wrote:
>AJ wrote:
>
>> Chris Peterson wrote:
>
>> >> They never perform research with regard to the
>> >> existence of God.
>
>> >Hogwash.
>
>> OK lets call you on this one...
>> What research have you specifically carried out.?
>
>Enough to realize that christianity is not any more believable
>to me than any other religion is.
Very vague and unscientific Chris.
Can't buy that one..sorry
Looked at any Prophecy?
>Let me ask you why you are convinced that your current religious
>belief is the correct one?
Because I was chosen by God..in eternity past.
I am an extreme rationalist and a Research Scientist..
I make my living this way..I have to be right or I go broke.
Christianity does not appeal to my process of rationalisation one
Iota. But I also can not explain many things..Eternity past itself.
I can not explain why I became a Christian.
It is to do with belief..not rationalisation.
> Have you had some mystical experience
>which you attribute to a god?
No...just sure fire revelation of God line upon line.
As I study the word of God.
> Or are you merely following what you
>were brought up to believe?
No..although I was brought up as a Christian.
I "escaped" for about 20 years.
>Care to give a list of prayers of yours that have been answered?
I could give you a book full..all of which could be rationalised away.
AJ
A. O'Reilly
> I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
> an atheist."
>
> The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
True, and then we hopefully gain the tools of reason and logic to examine
the world and develop a working understanding of it -- one that does not
require belief in that which has no evidence.
> Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
Oh, I'm sure we're all ignorant about one subject or another...but not
about what it takes to believe in fairy tales, after all, many of us were
Christians.
> The question is, once born, does one "advance."
All normal humans do I would venture. Now, to propose that we all
advance in the same areas to the same degree is silliness.
> The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
> raises the question of whether atheists never advance
> beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
No it doesn't. It would only do so if you present one shred of evidence
for this god. Until then, it will remain the arena of faith (belief
without evidence) and mythology. Are you then arguing that the kooks out
there who think there was a UFO in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet have
also advanced to some proper state of knowledge? No, of course not, they
too were believing without evidence to support their proposition.
> The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
> remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
No, they develop the tools of reason and logic to ascertain that the
status quo of their beliefs is the way to remain. For some of us (many I
would guess), we are "dumbed down" into religion and "grow" into logic
and reason simultaneously -- and then we "grow" right out of the
Christian belief. Perhaps we should then assume that all Christians are
stunted in their growth since they have not been able to move beyond?
> They never perform research with regard to the
> existence of God.
Wrong -- I was actually a good little church-going boy for 21 years -- a
self-proclaimed agnostic looking for the Truth(tm) for 4 years -- and an
atheist for the last year or so. So this is something I have thought
about and reasoned out at length for myself.
> They never search for truth with regard to the
> existence of God.
See above, Mr. Over-Generalization.
> They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
> the existence of God.
See above. Atheists have no belief in god -- do you need a clearer
conclusion? I have no belief in the Purple ArgleBargle -- would you also
say I have yet to arrive at a conclusion about it?
> They remain in the same state the were born, as
> ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
No, if you'll note above I have followed your line of reasoning to show
that we were in effect "dumbed down" and then grew out of it. Of course,
this whole line of argument is silly because it does nothing to prove
your god. We are born without a belief in this god -- different
religions try to "educate" us as to the existence of their garden variety
deity -- you have made the case for the change for the status quo -- now
prove to us in a manner other than indoctrination as children that this
god exists. Then we can talk.
--
%====================^====================%
A. O'Reilly Atheist #1153
%====================^====================%
"They tell me reach out and change the
world, so I reach out -- I reach out and
change the channel." - Human Radio
Chris Peterson
> chr...@flash.net (Chris Peterson) wrote:
> >AJ wrote:
> >> Jim Cheesman <mog...@arrakis.es> wrote:
> >> >Unlike the thought out and radically different christian response you
> >> >blessed us with, I suppose.
> >> Orthodox Christians do not have radically different responses.
> >> They have Dogma.
> >Thought out dogma? Or just regurgitated?
> Systematic Theology..but I don't like using big words.
Then keep it simple.
> Christianity is a belief system.
It's more like a disease I think, waiting for a cure.
> If I had to rationalise everything about it I would never have become
> one.
Sounds typical to me. Toss out rationality, that's definitely
a recommendable thing to do.
> I am a classical sceptic in all things but God.
I'll bet it took you a few weeks to accept that Santa was
not real after you realized the easter bunny was a fake also.
> I was chosen to be a christian in eternity past.
How far back does your eternity go? As far as you
can remember?
> That is why I am one.
And you are proud of your pathetic gullibility?
> The understanding comes as you move along..little by little ..line on
> line. It is a big subject..nobody will ever know all the answers in
> this life.
Nobody will ever know, eh? Actually you are correct. But some of you
think you will know, after you die. What is your motive here?
To try to dupe other people into believing that some spirit lives
after we die? Why have you bought into this?
> >> That is what it is about.If you want highly intellectual conversation..
> >> go somewhere else.
> >> AJ
> >Are you saying you aren't capable of an intellectual conversation?
> On the contrary. But intellectual conversations are two sided.
Agreed. So why the line about going somewhere else to find such
conversation?
> It is difficult to discuss the "word of God" with people who do not
> understand it. They can not be expected to as it is spiritually
> discerned.You have to have the indwelling of the holy spirit to
> understand the word of god.
Self righteous aren't you, and proud of it to boot. What about
the humility preached in your bible?
> Atheists can not possibly have this facility..so there is no ground
> for discussing the word of God.
So get lost then.
> So what else do we do.?
Tell us some of your personal experiences which convince you that
god exists. I remember a recent one of a light bulb burning out
and the person thinking it was a sign from god.
> Talk about how God is a beast because it is raining and I cant go to
> play golf?
No need for that. I can play golf right here on my computer.
> Except perhaps by looking at prophesy.
Can I interest you in some bible code software?
> Things that will or have effected Atheists.
Believe in horoscopes too, do you?
> I have called on Scott to give a good example.
> I think it is the ONLY strategy for Atheists.
> It is not my field.
--
Chris Peterson #1075
Chris Ho-Stuart
[I don't care what he wrote]
Argh. You set up cross posts to alt.atheism. Don't *do* that!
Chris Ho-Stuart -- who posts to both groups, but understands the reason
for having two groups. This post is to a.r.c only.
Chris Peterson
> chr...@flash.net (Chris Peterson) wrote:
> >Enough to realize that christianity is not any more believable
> >to me than any other religion is.
> Very vague and unscientific Chris.
> Can't buy that one..sorry
You said you don't like big words.
> Looked at any Prophecy?
Prophecy is about as useful as a horoscope. One can read just
about anything they want into either.
> >Let me ask you why you are convinced that your current religious
> >belief is the correct one?
> Because I was chosen by God..in eternity past.
> I am an extreme rationalist and a Research Scientist..
> I make my living this way..I have to be right or I go broke.
> Christianity does not appeal to my process of rationalisation one
> Iota. But I also can not explain many things..Eternity past itself.
Sounds delusional to me.
> I can not explain why I became a Christian.
So you expect others to follow suit?
> It is to do with belief..not rationalisation.
What emotional states are you in when having these beliefs
or experiences?
> > Have you had some mystical experience
> >which you attribute to a god?
> No...just sure fire revelation of God line upon line.
> As I study the word of God.
The more you read, the more you believe, in other words.
Circular reasoning it seems to me.
> > Or are you merely following what you
> >were brought up to believe?
> No..although I was brought up as a Christian.
> I "escaped" for about 20 years.
Probably had some personal tragedy or trauma which led
you back eh?
> >Care to give a list of prayers of yours that have been answered?
> I could give you a book full..all of which could be rationalised away.
Oh, I'm all for rationalizing things away. Let's hear a few of your
personal stories. You aren't afraid to share them are you?
--
Chris Peterson #1075
Darren R Middleton
>Jim Sarbeck wrote in message ...Snip
>>(2) "I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the
>>world."
>
>The rational atheist position is this: the existence of an omnibenevolent,
>omnipotent deity is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. So,
>any theology that posits all three (omnipotence, omnibenevolence and evil)
>is logically impossible. Take your pick which one to delete, but deleting
>logic makes life irrational. Deleting the recognition of evil (which is
>recognized by theism!) makes life amoral; you be the judge of this. So, for
>all but the irrational or amoral, some aspect of deity -- omnibenevolence
>or omnipotence --has to be disbelieved. You get to choose.
G'day Jim,
Since you raised (ironically) the issue of a straw man argument I thought I
might point out your own straw man argument from above.
First you present God as two dimensional and add in the presence of evil and
suggest we have a logical impossibility... hello.
Second the straw god you present above is not the God of Scripture. The God
of Scripture is never, ever, ever presented as omnibenevolent, that is your
self serving spin on things. Rather we note the incommunicable attributes of
God are omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience but never omnibenevolence.
God's also has other attributes which are communicable, grace, goodness,
justice, mercy, wrath, wisdom etc.
I hope you can see the straw in your own argument ;-)
Regards
Darren Middleton
Mark C.
In <35edf00d...@news.wantree.com.au>, p...@wantree.com.au (AJ)
writes:
>On 2 Sep 1998 05:30:52 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>>In <6sid4p$jpu$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, a...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Aaron
Dodd) writes:
>>>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
>
>No..Dr Ron Rhodes wrote.
>
>>>: No one is born an atheist.
>>>
>>>On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word
itself
>>>suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is
born with
>>>religious belief.
>>>
>>Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
>>being a baby?
>
>Are you talking to me (AJ) or the Author Ron Rhodes.?
>AJ
>
I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
an atheist."
The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
The question is, once born, does one "advance."
The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
raises the question of whether atheists never advance
beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
They never perform research with regard to the
existence of God.
They never search for truth with regard to the
existence of God.
They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
the existence of God.
They remain in the same state the were born, as
ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
Uh...I hate to break this to you but, a lot of the atheists here
used
to be theists. They have done their share of research and have
considered
the whole religion thing a big lie.
Scott
--
Mark C.
#99
"..but the Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions
there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any..."
[_The Age of Reason_, Thomas Paine, p. 104]
Mark C.
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:48:18 -0700, chr...@flash.net (Chris Peterson)
wrote:
>AJ wrote:
>
>> Chris Peterson wrote:
>
>> >> They never perform research with regard to the
>> >> existence of God.
>
>> >Hogwash.
>
>> OK lets call you on this one...
>> What research have you specifically carried out.?
>
>Enough to realize that christianity is not any more believable
>to me than any other religion is.
Very vague and unscientific Chris.
Can't buy that one..sorry
Looked at any Prophecy?
>Let me ask you why you are convinced that your current religious
>belief is the correct one?
Because I was chosen by God..in eternity past.
Hoo-boy! I just love it when they claim that they
are "Chosen by God".
I am an extreme rationalist
It shows. So, show us a rational reason to believe
in a god.
and a Research Scientist..
What do you research?
I make my living this way..I have to be right or I go broke.
Christianity does not appeal to my process of rationalisation one
Iota.
It shouldn't. In fact, if you try to rationalize it, the less
likely it
appears to be true.
But I also can not explain many things.
So? You're a scientist. Figure it out.
When you come across a unexpected result in your research,
do you automatically say "God did it"?
Eternity past itself.
What the hell does this mean? I hope you're not working on
anything dangerous to society at large.
I can not explain why I became a Christian.
It is to do with belief..not rationalisation.
See above about rationalization.
> Have you had some mystical experience
>which you attribute to a god?
No...just sure fire revelation of God line upon line.
???
As I study the word of God.
Are you sure you're a scientist? This hardly sounds like
the scientific method to me.
> Or are you merely following what you
>were brought up to believe?
No..although I was brought up as a Christian.
I "escaped" for about 20 years.
>Care to give a list of prayers of yours that have been answered?
I could give you a book full..all of which could be rationalised
away.
And yet you still believe.
AJ
Mike Hore
Chris Ho-Stuart wrote in message <6sl96t$ci5$1...@dove.qut.edu.au>...
Chris is right. Don't EVER EVER EVER set crossposts to alt.atheism!!
There's no need for me to explain why. All will become only too
clear in the next few days. But I won't be joining in. :-(
Cheers, Mike.
AJ
wrote:
>Oh, I'm all for rationalizing things away. Let's hear a few of your
>personal stories. You aren't afraid to share them are you?
No Chris I gave you a go but you are a waste of space.
Bye.
AJ
>Chris Peterson #1075
AJ
wrote:
Mike it already is..
see what we attracted already.
Time to break camp.
AJ
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>> In <35edf00d...@news.wantree.com.au>, p...@wantree.com.au (AJ) writes:
>> >On 2 Sep 1998 05:30:52 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>> >
>> >>In <6sid4p$jpu$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, a...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Aaron Dodd) writes:
>> >>>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
>> >
>> >No..Dr Ron Rhodes wrote.
>> >
>> >>>: No one is born an atheist.
>> >>>
>> >>>On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
>> >>>suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born with
>> >>>religious belief.
>> >>>
>> >>Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
>> >>being a baby?
>> >
>> >Are you talking to me (AJ) or the Author Ron Rhodes.?
>> >AJ
>> >
>> I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
>> an atheist."
>>
>> The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>>
>> Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
>>
>> The question is, once born, does one "advance."
>>
>> The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>> raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>> beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>>
>> The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>> remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>>
>> existence of God.
>>
>> existence of God.
>>
>> They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>> the existence of God.
>>
>> ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>>
>
>Hold on! I was born a human. Does this mean that (having not evolved
>in thought) I have somehow missed out? What should I be?
>
I have received. However, are you equating being an
atheist with being a human? If that argument were valid,
would not ALL humans be atheists?
No, there must be SOMETHING that sets atheists apart
from humans.
It seems to me like something is lacking in the "I am
human therefore I must be an atheist" response.
Scott
Sterling Crowe
AJ wrote in message <35eec4b8...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>On 2 Sep 1998 22:33:25 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>>In <35edf00d...@news.wantree.com.au>, p...@wantree.com.au (AJ) writes:
>>>On 2 Sep 1998 05:30:52 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>In <6sid4p$jpu$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, a...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Aaron Dodd)
writes:
>>>>>AJ (p...@wantree.com.au) wrote:
>>>
>>>No..Dr Ron Rhodes wrote.
>>>
>>>>>: No one is born an atheist.
>>>>>
>>>>>On the contrary, everyone is born as an atheist. As the word itself
>>>>>suggests, atheism is the absence of religious belief. No one is born
with
>>>>>religious belief.
>>>>>
>>>>Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
>>>>being a baby?
>>>
atheist" and supporting the argument by indicating the definition of
"atheist".
There is nothing in that simple argument which suggests an attitude that one
does not "advance" beyond being a baby. When stated in the way you have
stated it, it is not only irrelevant to the statement which was made, it is
insulting in that you are not delineating what you mean by "advanced",
suggesting that maturity of any sort is out of reach for atheists.
>>>Are you talking to me (AJ) or the Author Ron Rhodes.?
>>>AJ
>>>
>>I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
>>an atheist."
>
>Dr Ron Rhodes.
>He is not listening ..he is in America.
>I may attempt an answer ..although I do not agree with his approaches
>to Atheists.
What is it you don't agree with?
>>The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>
>Ignorance of God? In a conscious sense yes.
Ignorance of everything except, perhaps, the sound of mother's voice,
rooting, and sucking.
>>Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
>
>Ignorant of God in a conscious sense..everyone is at Birth.
*sigh* which statement includes the axiomatic idea that God exists.
Something which you haven't demonstrated.
Do you remain ignorant of Krishna? Everyone is at birth. Wodin? Allah?
Shiva? Herne?
You see, your god is really no different for us than any of the other gods
believed in by other theists.
>>The question is, once born, does one "advance."
>
>To where? belief in God I suppose.
>Some do as is the will and plan of God.
*sigh* I can't even decide which God you mean. Which of the thousands of
gods out there are you suggesting has it in mind that some people will come
to worship it? If it is a Christian/Pauline god, which of the variations?
One in which Mosaic Law still applies? One based in faith alone? One based
in faith and works? An exotic? You seem to believe in predestination and God
willfully affecting the minds of men according to his plan, or have I
misinterpreted?
>>The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>>raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>>beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
Which implies what you have not demonstrated: existence of God.
Here is a progression you may wish to consider as well. If you find it
insulting at all, do not blame me, as I am merely demonstrating how your
logic can be extended:
Infancy: ignorance, total lack of awareness of Santa Claus. a-Santa-ist
Childhood: Faith. Belief in Santa Claus and desire to please Santa Claus.
Santa-ist
Late childhood: Loss of belief in Santa. Mourning for the memory. Seeker.
Adolescence: No more belief in Santa. Perhaps a sadistic streak causes the
person to tell children that Santa isn't real. Infidel.
Maturity: Acceptance that Santa doesn't exist, but with knowledge of what
Santa meant to the person. Benevolent attitude towards those who continue to
believe, and an attempt to continue to represent the ideals that the myth
represented. Freethinking a-Santa-ist.
Does it occur to you that, perhaps, a similar progression is made in the
lives of atheists and some of us are watching, hoping that Christians step
beyond the "little children" point in their progression?
>It is a poor argument IMHO.
>Yours is developing better.
>
>>The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>>remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
Or, perhaps, they grow beyond the need for a god for which they have seen no
objective proof.
>Knowledge of who God is supposed to be? ..then yes.
>Belief in God...no.
>They would not then be Atheists.
And yet, they may have been theists and realized that theism was empty for
them.
>>They never perform research with regard to the
>>existence of God.
Ahem. Engage any of the regulars in alt.atheism (you'll recognize them by
their numbers) in conversations about what they have done to look for God in
their lives and you will see that you are sadly mistaken here.
I, for one, have read the Bible through only once, alas. I have spoken with
theists over twelve years in my life. I have had myself baptized, I have
knelt down and prayed, I have begged the empty dark for a sign of anything.
I have sat still and meditated, waiting for the "still, small voice", and I
have participated in the rituals of several churches, a synagogue, and two
covens.
How much have you done to search for Krishna to make sure you haven't picked
the wrong one?
>Agreed Scott. I think you could help here..from a prophesy POV.
>However I doubt if any are seriously interested or have enough
>motivation with respect to attention span.
Re: the subject.
Posting insulting generalities about atheists to an atheist newsgroup would
not rank high on the list of successful "Strategies for dealing with
Atheists."
>Give them an example.
>But let them ask first.
Which of the many prophecies is it going to be? Is it going to be one which
hasn't happened yet? Is it going to be one involving Matthew and his faulty
understanding of the messiahnic prophecies (including, of course, the idea
that a virgin/young woman would give birth, a prophecy fulfilled right there
in the book of Isaiah)? One of the prophecies made and fulfilled in the OT,
when editors and translators have had plenty of time to cut out the ones
which didn't work? The prophecies which are so vague that they can and have,
indeed, have been applied to anything by apocalyptic preachers of every
generation since the one Jesus said would not pass away before his return?
Or do you have something new?
Please tell me that it is the last.
>>They never search for truth with regard to the
>>existence of God.
Or, perhaps, they have already arrived at it and are waiting for you to
catch up?
>Agreed to a point.But most are looking for reasons to deny that god
>exists..they stop when they think they have found one..and give
>themselves a pat on the back.which is strange.
*sigh* I, for one, have spent the better part of my life looking for
something to match any of the multitudinous definitions for "god" I have
heard. Idols and the sun notwithstanding, I have found nothing.
When an atheist pokes a hole in one of your arguments, it is not because he
is looking for "reasons to deny god exists", it is because he is testing the
evidence you offer for belief. The fact that a hole opens right up is not a
fault of the atheist, it is a fault of the argument and, perhaps, a fault of
your god, should it exist, for not providing you with an argument to
overcome any possible objection.
If the evidence you present is faulty for whatever reason, be it that it is
a "logical" argument based on logical fallicies, an appeal to faulty
science, or an emotional appeal based on false assumptions about the
motivations of the person to whom you are appealing, then it is not
evidence. Don't blame the atheist for your failings.
As far as the "pat on the back" goes, perhaps there are those who do so. I
pat myself on the back for educating someone when I can and for learning
something from them whenever I can.
>As a Christian should
>I be looking for reasons why God does not exist ?
Certainly. Are you not exhorted in your Bible to test your faith when you
can?
>.Don't think so.. it
>is a belief system...I am a believer not a doubting Thomas..
Thomas had his doubts swept clean by evidence he considered valid and
substantial. He did not simply say "OK, I believe you" and do you think he
would have ceased his doubting had he discovered that the wounds were merely
stage makeup and the man before him was not Jesus? Why do you deny atheists
this sort of evidence? Why do you accuse us of being infantile for wanting
something substantial?
>>They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>>the existence of God.
>
>They do.. they conclude that God does not exist.. before they look at
>the evidence.
This is ironic, to say the least. You have concluded that you know the
motives of an entire group of people with one binding feature "lack of
belief in god or gods" and you have done so before you looked at the
evidence.
>>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>
>True.
Are you interested in the truth?
--Sterling Crowe
#1168
>AJ
>
AJ
wrote:
>Believe in horoscopes too, do you?
Your arguments just blew me away Chris.
I can not cope anymore with this intellectual pressure.
You are sooo cruel you Atheists.
Bye Chris.
AJ
99% of Athiests give the rest a bad name folks.
Jim Sarbeck
>I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
>an atheist."
>The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
It does not follow logically, if that's what you mean. For example:
Everyone is born without belief that the earth is flat. True. Everyone is
born in ignorance. True. Some people come to disbelive that the earth is
flat. True. Can one then conclude that those who disbelieve that the earth
is flat are ignorant? No.
>The question is, once born, does one "advance."
Of course, if by advance you mean increasing in knowledge.
>The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
And that question is as quickly answered.
>The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
Not demonstrated.
>They never perform research with regard to the
>existence of God.
Undemonstrated.
>They never search for truth with regard to the
>existence of God.
Undemonstrated.
>They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>the existence of God.
Undemonstrated.
>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
Sorry, but your entire argument collapsed.
AJ
wrote:
>
>AJ wrote in message <35f27dcc...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>"Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists"
>>by Ron Rhodes
>
>
>
>This stuff makes me wonder how many intelligent atheists Ron Rhodes
>has ever had discussions with.
Me too.
They are very light on the ground judging from these posts.
I'm still looking for one to have a discussion with.
> But hey, let's not listen to what the
>other side is actually saying -- then there'd be danger of having a
>serious discussion!! We mustn't let that happen around here!!!
Looks like it won't happen Mike.
>Oh well, I think the comments of the putative Dr Samuel Vimes
>are very appropriate.
>
>
>Cheers, Mike.
Cheers AJ
>
>
Sterling Crowe
AJ wrote in message <35f433a8...@news.wantree.com.au>...
<snip>
>99% of Athiests give the rest a bad name folks.
You come to this conclusion after reading responses from two atheists out of
over a thousand?
And this after filling a couple of posts with insulting generalizations
about how atheists never seek after answers and how they are infantile?
And then you add an insulting generalization like this one based on a tiny
sample?
Did it occur to you that you may have behaved in an extremely impolite
manner for your first impression and people are responding to you in kind?
--Sterling Crowe, smart enough not to judge all theists by the actions of
the liars and hatemongers who turn up with alarming frequency to
alt.atheism.
And, no, AJ, I'm not calling you a liar or a hatemonger. I am merely
suggesting that you might need to learn a little nettiquette before you
embarass yourself in front of strangers.
heb...@ibm.net
>things
>
Yes.
>or sticking with the first one you read or are taught?
>
An obvious jab at Christians, but wholly incorrect.
Faith in God is not something that can be "taught".
>> The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>> raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>> beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>
>Which god? If you were born and raised in China, would
>you most likely still believe in the christian god?
>
It matters not. Any God.
>You seem to be implying that you are absolutely sure
>that you have chosen to believe in the one true god.
>
That is the exact difference between Christianity and
"religions". But it is irrelevant to this discussion.
>> The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>> remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>
>Many atheists have done a whole lot more research on
>all the different religions than many christians have.
>
And what are their conclusions with regard to the
"gods" of those religions, and with regard to the
"God" of Christianity, Muslim, or Judaism?
>> They never perform research with regard to the
>> existence of God.
>
>Hogwash.
>
Shall we get personal or do you wish to remain in the
general and theoretical? What sort of research into
the the existence of God do atheists normally engage in?
>> They never search for truth with regard to the
>> existence of God.
>
>The truth is perfectly clear. Gods don't exist.
>
What about a single God then? Most Christians
believe only in a single God, not Gods.
And what leads you to conclude that gods do not exist?
>> They never arrive at any conclusion with regard to
>> the existence of God.
>
>What?
>
You did arrive at such a conclusion yourself?
You seem to have concluded that there are no "gods",
but what of a singular "God"? Have you also concluded
that there is not singular God? What led you to that
conclusion?
>> They remain in the same state the were born, as
>> ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>
>Please rethink the above statement.
>
Sure, on one condition. What SEARCH or RESEARCH
did you conduct to arrive at your conclusions?
Was it based upon some logical analysis of some facts?
Was it based upon observances and reason?
Regards,
Scott
Sterling Crowe
AJ wrote in message <35eded1...@news.wantree.com.au>...<snip>
>> Tis sad that you have
>>the need, but you are not alone.
Translation: Too bad you feel that your life is incomplete without a god. At
least you have company in your need.
>> Been long on this group, you would
>>note that the majority held a religious belief at one time, most
>>probably xian, never asked myself.
Translation: Had you read the posts in alt.atheism (lurked) before allowing
yourself to be crossposted there, you would have noticed that most of the
atheists here are former theists. Most may have been Christian, but I never
asked.
>Don't understand that lot
>Say no to drugs folks!!
Dealer: Would you like some Drugs Folks(tm)?
Me: NO!
<snip>
>> Don't know, why don't you ask him. Seeing where you are
>>posting from, Ha' a good day mate.
>
>Lost me again ..but i'm just a thick Christian..it is not hard.
The newsgroup in the header along with alt.atheism is
"aus.religion.christian" which seems to be an Australian Christian
newsgroup. He was making an attempt at courtesy.
--Sterling Crowe
AJ
>--Sterling Crowe wrote.
>
>Are you interested in the truth?
Yes I found it already.
Bye Stirling.
AJ
AJ
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>AJ wrote in message <35f433a8...@news.wantree.com.au>...
><snip>
>>99% of Athiests give the rest a bad name folks.
>And, no, AJ, I'm not calling you a liar or a hatemonger. I am merely
>suggesting that you might need to learn a little nettiquette before you
>embarass yourself in front of strangers.
It was a joke Sterling..lighten up.
BTW Christians are not door mats.
Embarassed ..don't make me laugh.
Bye
AJ
Sterling Crowe
AJ wrote in message <35f637ae...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>
>>--Sterling Crowe wrote.
>>
>>Are you interested in the truth?
>
Care to share? Sorry, all I saw in your post was falsehoods (note, NOT
"lies") about atheists based on ignorance (note, ignorance is simply a lack
of knowledge and is not derogatory in any way).
>Bye Stirling.
So, after a polite and careful reply to your post, I receive a dismissal and
insult in the form of a mispelling of my name in return? This from a person
who has learned Christ's truth?
*sigh* As any among you theists righteous? Are you willing to demonstrate
such?
--Sterling Crowe
>AJ
AJ
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Translation: Had you read the posts in alt.atheism (lurked) before allowing
>yourself to be crossposted there, you would have noticed that most of the
>atheists here are former theists. Most may have been Christian, but I never
>asked.
Thank you for that.
>The newsgroup in the header along with alt.atheism is
>"aus.religion.christian" which seems to be an Australian Christian
>newsgroup. He was making an attempt at courtesy.
Ah yes I can see that attempt at courtesy from his first comment..
"Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered
the following:"
Then he said I had lost my grip on the world..
Yes I can see it everso plainly now... he was being polite.
Well it was not my intention to post to alt.atheism.
Never heard of it. Don't even know what crossposting is.
Somebody must be doing that for us.
I see some of the regulars are concerned that this has happened..
AJ
heb...@ibm.net
>AJ wrote:
>
>> Chris Peterson wrote:
>
>> >> existence of God.
>
>> >Hogwash.
>
>> What research have you specifically carried out.?
>
>Enough to realize that christianity is not any more believable
>
This isn't very specific Chris. And we weren't talking about
Christianity. We were discussing whether atheists ever even
make an attempt to resolve the issue of the existence of God.
It was your claim that they do, or at least that the counter
claim that they do not is "hogwash".
>I could present many things which prove christianity is nothing
>more than a religion which was built on previous ones. There's
>nothing particularly special about it, except the fact that it
>tended to absorb some pagan beliefs early on, and later on
>politics got involved in the whole spreading of it.
>
Again, we aren't speaking of Christianity, and this rather reveals
your bias I think. Let's keep it simple. Stick to the existence
of God. If God exists, THEN you can worry about whether
Jesus Christ was the way He chose to reveal Himself.
>Let me ask you why you are convinced that your current religious
>belief is the correct one? Have you had some mystical experience
>which you attribute to a god? Or are you merely following what you
>were brought up to believe?
>
Both. But this is really a matter for another thread.
I was raised in a Christian home in which I was taught
ABOUT God, and was even sure that I believed in God.
But later in life I realized that I did not KNOW God. This
then led me to the "mystical" experience as you put it.
>Care to give a list of prayers of yours that have been answered?
>
Sure, an obvious sign of the existence of God.
I prayed for at leat two things that I received from Him,
among countless others, but these two were the most
important.
I prayed and asked His forgiveness and asked Him to
save and change me. He definitely answered that one,
the change that come over my life was incredible,
unbelievable even.
I prayed and asked that His Holy Spirit be poured out
upon me. This He answered as well with the evidence
that I now can speak a language that I never knew
before and did not learn by training my mind.
Regards,
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>
>But intellectual conversations are two sided.
>understand it. They can not be expected to as it is spiritually
>discerned.You have to have the indwelling of the holy spirit to
>understand the word of god.
>for discussing the word of God.
>play golf?
>I think it is the ONLY strategy for Atheists.
>It is not my field.
Normally it is also a waste of time to discuss prophecy
with an atheist because it is so easy to pull out the old
"that was written after the fact" argument.
Someone must really have an open mind. Most atheists
I have spoken with do not seem to have this when it
comes to God.
Many seem to go far beyond not believing in God and
actively set themselves to oppose those that do.
I guess they see Christians and Christianity as a threat.
The best tactic is the good old gospel, God's love for
them, and the example of your own changed life, which
no one can deny.
God Bless,
Scott
AJ
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>AJ wrote in message <35f637ae...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>
>>>--Sterling Crowe wrote.
>>>
>>>Are you interested in the truth?
>>
>>Yes I found it already.
>
>
>Care to share?
Care to share all your stories.
No I would not..Sorry cobber.
>Sorry, all I saw in your post was falsehoods (note, NOT
>"lies") about atheists based on ignorance (note, ignorance is simply a lack
>of knowledge and is not derogatory in any way).
>
>>Bye Stirling.
>
>So, after a polite and careful reply to your post,
Like this one Sterling.?.
Ignorance of everything except, perhaps, the sound of mother's voice,
rooting, and sucking.
Does rooting mean the same thing in USA as in Australia.?
>I receive a dismissal and
>insult in the form of a mispelling of my name in return? This from a person
>who has learned Christ's truth?
This person can smell a set up from 100 paces.
I did not come down in the last shower Sterling.
>*sigh* As any among you theists righteous? Are you willing to demonstrate
>such?
You will have to be far more subtle than this to draw me into a
conversation with you.
Bye Stering.
Sterling Crowe
heb...@ibm.net wrote in message <35ee4...@news1.ibm.net>...
>In <MPG.1057a5727...@news.flash.net>, chr...@flash.net (Chris
Peterson) writes:
>>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>>> The question is, once born, does one "advance."
>>
>>Yes, but do you mean advance by learning about many different
>>things
>>
>Yes.
>
>
>>or sticking with the first one you read or are taught?
>>
>An obvious jab at Christians, but wholly incorrect.
Um. No. It was a nod to the fact that the majority of people out there tend
to believe what they were raised to believe in.
>Faith in God is not something that can be "taught".
I would agree there, if it were true. The reality, however, is somewhat
different. Otherwise, there would be no missionaries.
There would be no point.
>
>>> The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>>> raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>>> beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>>
>>Which god? If you were born and raised in China, would
>>you most likely still believe in the christian god?
>>
>It matters not. Any God.
So, just as long as someone believes in a god, that person is OK as far as
you are concerned?
>
>>You seem to be implying that you are absolutely sure
>>that you have chosen to believe in the one true god.
>>
>That is the exact difference between Christianity and
>"religions". But it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not at all. You are suggesting that atheists are lacking in that they do not
believe in a god or gods. However, can you truly state that a theist has
actually "advanced" (stipulating, for the sake of argument, that at least
one god exists) beyond the atheist if that theist believes in a god which
does not exist?
In that sense, your personal assurance that you have chosen wisely is very
relevant to the conversation.
>
>>> The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>>> remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>>
>>Many atheists have done a whole lot more research on
>>all the different religions than many christians have.
>>
>And what are their conclusions with regard to the
>"gods" of those religions, and with regard to the
>"God" of Christianity, Muslim, or Judaism?
Atheist conclusions about gods? Self evident: there is not sufficient
evidence (or, indeed, any objective evidence) which suggests that those gods
exist.
If an atheist happens to find sufficient evidence to inspire belief for that
atheist, then the atheist ceases to be an atheist and become Christian,
Muslim, Jewish, or whatever.
>
>>> They never perform research with regard to the
>>> existence of God.
>>
>>Hogwash.
>>
>Shall we get personal or do you wish to remain in the
>general and theoretical? What sort of research into
>the the existence of God do atheists normally engage in?
Historical basis of belief.
Study of logic and philosophy.
Prayer.
Meditation.
Participation in rituals.
Study of holy writs.
Study of science and the world. Theories of origins and the like.
Discussions with believers.
Arguments with believers.
Fights with believers.
Repeat with various religions and sects of religions.
I do not speak for all atheists by any means, but these are the methods I
have used in my studies. Is there an approach I could have missed which you
would like to point out?
>
>>> They never search for truth with regard to the
>>> existence of God.
>>
>>The truth is perfectly clear. Gods don't exist.
>>
>What about a single God then? Most Christians
>believe only in a single God, not Gods.
*sigh* Yes, we are aware of many Christian beliefs. Including the one which
allows a Christian to believe that 1+1+1=1.
>And what leads you to conclude that gods do not exist?
To answer that, I would need a clear definition of what you consider "gods"
to be. What traits does your god posses?
This is not to be difficult, it is simply to have a clear idea of what is
being discussed. If you worship the sun as your god, one is going to have a
bit of trouble showing that that does not exist, for instance.
Better yet, head over to www.infidels.org for some standard atheist replies
to common theist arguments.
>
>>> They never arrive at any conclusion with regard to
>>> the existence of God.
>>
>>What?
>>
>You did arrive at such a conclusion yourself?
>
>You seem to have concluded that there are no "gods",
>but what of a singular "God"? Have you also concluded
>that there is not singular God? What led you to that
>conclusion?
Total lack of objective evidence.
Muddled and self contradictory definitions.
Those two can generally be considered sufficient.
>
>>> They remain in the same state the were born, as
>>> ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>>
>>Please rethink the above statement.
>>
>Sure, on one condition. What SEARCH or RESEARCH
>did you conduct to arrive at your conclusions?
>
>Was it based upon some logical analysis of some facts?
"logical analysis of some facts?" Hmmm... Well, a logical look at the world
and examination of the facts which are verifiable and present in that world
have yet, for me, to have led to the conclusion that something supernatural
is necessary for any aspect of the world or the universe which contains it.
Logical analysis of apologetic arguments show them to be lacking in the
logic area.
>Was it based upon observances and reason?
Is your faith?
If not, why ask the question, except as a red herring? If so, then present
the logic, objective observation, or the reasoning behind it.
--Sterling Crowe
Sterling Crowe
AJ wrote in message <35fa3fec...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 03:49:34 -0400, "Sterling Crowe"
><weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>AJ wrote in message <35f637ae...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>>
>>>>--Sterling Crowe wrote.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Care to share?
>
>Care to share all your stories.
>No I would not..Sorry cobber.
One question: Does your truth involve me burning in Hell for all eternity if
I do not reach it?
If so, are you totally unwilling to share any portion of it?
>>Sorry, all I saw in your post was falsehoods (note, NOT
>>"lies") about atheists based on ignorance (note, ignorance is simply a
lack
>>of knowledge and is not derogatory in any way).
>>
>>>Bye Stirling.
>>
>>So, after a polite and careful reply to your post,
>
>Like this one Sterling.?.
>Ignorance of everything except, perhaps, the sound of mother's voice,
>rooting, and sucking.
Right, those are what the baby knows. Did you actually think I was accusing
YOU of being that way?
I stated that you were ignorant of atheist experience and/or motives,
leading to the sort of generalizations you were making. That is what you are
ignorant of.
>Does rooting mean the same thing in USA as in Australia.?
Beats me.
The "rooting" I was referring to is the action an infants takes with its
head in looking for its mother's nipple. One of the things an infant is not
ignorant of, IOW.
>>I receive a dismissal and
>>insult in the form of a mispelling of my name in return? This from a
person
>>who has learned Christ's truth?
>
>This person can smell a set up from 100 paces.
>I did not come down in the last shower Sterling.
OK, what exactly was I setting up?
When I wrote out in that long article what I felt some of my motives were
and what many of us here in alt.atheism have stated, what elaborate trap was
I arranging for you?
I am looking for discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. If I am offensive
later, kill file me and you have lost nothing. I am not going to attempt to
trick you out of belongings or addresses or whatever, I simply wish to
debate.
>>*sigh* As any among you theists righteous? Are you willing to demonstrate
>>such?
>
>You will have to be far more subtle than this to draw me into a
>conversation with you.
I didn't realize that coming right out and saying that I wanted a discussion
rather than insults was indicative of a desire to be subtle and hide my
motives.
>Bye Stering.
Again, a mispelling.
Where have I caused you offense, AJ?
--Sterling Crowe
heb...@ibm.net
>In article <35edc...@news1.ibm.net>, heb...@ibm.net says...
>
>> I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
>> an atheist."
>>
>> The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>
>the world and develop a working understanding of it -- one that does not
>require belief in that which has no evidence.
>
Ah. A formidable foe. One who argues there is NO
EVIDENCE for the existence of God.
How did you arrive at that conclusion sir? You clearly
imply that you LOOKED for evidence of God and are
not just engaged in unfounded assertion or presupposition.
>> Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
>
>Oh, I'm sure we're all ignorant about one subject or another...but not
>about what it takes to believe in fairy tales, after all, many of us were
>Christians.
>
As in, I went to church? Saying that one "was" a Christian
is rather an oxymoron. Are you saying that you never
actually experienced a life-transforming moment with God
through Jesus Christ? Or that you once did and then
rejected it?
You see, being a Christian does not involve what you THINK
about God or Jesus Christ, it involves something that is far
different than that, called faith.
And yes, we are all far more ignorant than most of us
care to admit. Particularly when it comes to things of
God, and Christians are probably more guilty of this
than most. As if BEING a Christian automatically
qualifies one to know all about God and what He
is doing.
>> The question is, once born, does one "advance."
>
>All normal humans do I would venture. Now, to propose that we all
>advance in the same areas to the same degree is silliness.
>
True, and that was not put forth.
>> The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>> raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>> beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>
>No it doesn't. It would only do so if you present one shred of evidence
>for this god. Until then, it will remain the arena of faith (belief
>without evidence) and mythology. Are you then arguing that the kooks out
>there who think there was a UFO in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet have
>also advanced to some proper state of knowledge? No, of course not, they
>too were believing without evidence to support their proposition.
>
Ah. But I am not claiming that God exists and trying to
prove it to you. This is a common error that Christians
engage in. For you must make the search yourself.
>> The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>> remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>
>No, they develop the tools of reason and logic to ascertain
>that the status quo of their beliefs is the way to remain.
>
Beliefs in what? Certainly not God. I am still waiting for
an atheist in this thread to put forth any evidence that
they actually even searched for or researched the
existence of God and so far all I have is claims that
they have, but no actual evidence that they do.
Are you telling me that YOU have done enough searching
to convince you that God does not exist? That based upon
your own experience and research it is reasonable for you
to believe that there is no God?
>> They never perform research with regard to the
>> existence of God.
>
>Wrong -- I was actually a good little church-going boy for 21 years -- a
>self-proclaimed agnostic looking for the Truth(tm) for 4 years -- and an
>atheist for the last year or so. So this is something I have thought
>about and reasoned out at length for myself.
>
Sorry. I must maintain that this is mere unsupported
assertion. You CLAIM that you researched the issue,
but you are merely asserting that which you seek to
prove. HOW did you search? Where? What PROCESS
did you use?
What were the steps that you took that led you to
the conclusion that God did not exist?
>> They never search for truth with regard to the
>> existence of God.
>
>See above, Mr. Over-Generalization.
>
It may be an overgeneralization to you, but so far all
you have done is assert that it is not true. I remain
unconvinced.
I can tell you about my search for God. I can tell you
how long it took, what were the motivating factors,
all this. I can present EVIDENCE to support my claim
that I searched for His existence.
You merely asset that you did. So, until someone puts
me in my place, I'll continue with the overgeneralizations.
Don't get me wrong, I am not insisting that you and I
would both HAVE to come to the same conclusions,
I am willing to entertain the idea that your search
ended differently than did mine.
>> They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>> the existence of God.
>
>See above. Atheists have no belief in god -- do you need a clearer
>conclusion? I have no belief in the Purple ArgleBargle -- would you also
>say I have yet to arrive at a conclusion about it?
>
AS you have clearly shown, it is an UNFOUNDED "no belief".
I could assert that I had no belief in the existence of pions
but that would be pretty meaningless if I never searched
for their existence wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't be
something I would want to bet my life on.
And yet this is the game that atheists play. We have a
lack of belief in God, they say. But what EFFORT did
they put forth to give them cause to make that statement?
My assertion is NONE. And that is the exact weight therefore
that there claim should be given, NONE. And God forbid one
actually come forth and insist that God does not exist based
upon their COMPLETE LACK OF INVESTIGATION OR RESEARCH
into the matter.
I can think of all sorts of examples of people I would not
trust to know the truth about something when they had
never studied the matter under consideration.
>> They remain in the same state the were born, as
>> ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>
>No, if you'll note above I have followed your line of reasoning to show
>that we were in effect "dumbed down" and then grew out of it. Of course,
>this whole line of argument is silly because it does nothing to prove
>your god. We are born without a belief in this god.
>
I have already refuted this above. You make the mistake
of thinking I am trying to prove the existence of God to
you. I know it is futile. Only God can convince you that
HE exists, and only YOU can decide to search for Him.
>-- different
>religions try to "educate" us as to the existence of their garden variety
>deity -- you have made the case for the change for the status quo -- now
>prove to us in a manner other than indoctrination as children that this
>god exists. Then we can talk.
>
It isn't my place. You consistently opposed the statements
I made in my post, but when it comes down to the final
analysis, you are looking for me to "prove" my God to you.
You have nothing to disprove my claims that you never
looked for Him yourself. Why should I find Him for you?
Give me some real indication that YOU actually looked
for Him. That YOU actually came to a reasonable
conclusion with regard to whether He exists or not.
I say you didn't. I say you remain an unreasonable
child, who refuses to even attempt to search for
the truth of a matter.
Scott
Sterling Crowe
AJ wrote in message <35f83c1f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 03:36:29 -0400, "Sterling Crowe"
><weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Translation: Had you read the posts in alt.atheism (lurked) before
allowing
>>yourself to be crossposted there, you would have noticed that most of the
>>atheists here are former theists. Most may have been Christian, but I
never
>>asked.
>
>Thank you for that.
No problem. As an aspiring writer and a current 911 operator, communication
is very important to me.
>
>>The newsgroup in the header along with alt.atheism is
>>"aus.religion.christian" which seems to be an Australian Christian
>>newsgroup. He was making an attempt at courtesy.
>
>Ah yes I can see that attempt at courtesy from his first comment..
Sorry. I misspoke. With that one statement, not indicative of the rest of
his post, he was attempting courtesy.
>
>Well it was not my intention to post to alt.atheism.
>Never heard of it. Don't even know what crossposting is.
>Somebody must be doing that for us.
>I see some of the regulars are concerned that this has happened..
Crossposting is a situation in which a single post is sent to two or more
different newsgroups.
If you look at the header of your responses, you can see that there are two
different groups there, aus.religion.christian and alt.atheism.
If you do not wish your responses to be read in both groups, you have the
option of "trimming your header", which means removing the newsgroups you do
not wish to post to.
Does it make more sense, now?
--Sterling Crowe
>AJ
>
>
heb...@ibm.net
>In aus.religion.christian heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>[I don't care what he wrote]
>
>Argh. You set up cross posts to alt.atheism. Don't *do* that!
>
>Chris Ho-Stuart -- who posts to both groups, but understands the reason
> for having two groups. This post is to a.r.c only.
>
Well, we will just have to exercise restraint and not
respond to posts from that group that are in this
thread but not worth responding to.
I crossposted for a specific reason with a specific
goal in mind. I wanted an audience <g>.
Scott
AJ
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Beats me.
>The "rooting" I was referring to is the action an infants takes with its
>head in looking for its mother's nipple. One of the things an infant is not
>ignorant of, IOW.
Well in Australia it means a crude sexual intercourse.OK.
As in I would like to root you.
>OK, what exactly was I setting up?
Me..it is perhaps in the way you go *sigh*..perhaps that is what irks
me about you.
>>>*sigh* As any among you theists righteous? Are you willing to demonstrate
>
See done it again.
>I didn't realize that coming right out and saying that I wanted a discussion
>rather than insults was indicative of a desire to be subtle and hide my
>motives.
Prehaps you are now indicating that you are.
I first have two rules about debating Atheists,.
1.They know the Bible very well.
2.They are intelligent.
Do you qualify.?
>Again, a mispelling.
>Where have I caused you offense, AJ?
You surely can not be offended by me mistyping your name.
Are you really that sensitive.?
Answer another question ..
why do you hate Gods so much?
AJ
AJ
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Does it make more sense, now?
>
>--Sterling Crowe
Yes thanks Sterling.
911 operator?
AJ
heb...@ibm.net
>
>Uh...I hate to break this to you but, a lot of the atheists here
>used to be theists. They have done their share of research
>and have considered the whole religion thing a big lie.
>
Yes. This is being proclaimed quite vociferously.
So far NOT ONE has actually presented the "research" that
they claim to have done with regard to the existence of God.
I would be more inclined to believe you if one or more
of these individuals would step up to the plate and put
to rest the notion that atheists don't even ATTEMPT
to test for or research the existence of God.
Would it be that great of a stroke to their ego to
just admit that I am right? That they remain in their
childlike, unbelieving, uninformed, uneducated, state
on this ONE issue. That they remain as infants in
this aspect of their knowledge.
These are my assertions regarding atheists:
They never perform research with regard to the
existence of God.
They never search for truth with regard to the
existence of God.
They never arrive at any conlcusion with regard to
the existence of God.
They remain in the same state the were born, as
ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
Show me to be wrong.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>
> Hoo-boy! I just love it when they claim that they
>are "Chosen by God".
>
>>AJ wrote:
>>I am an extreme rationalist
>
> It shows. So, show us a rational reason to believe
>in a god.
>
You (Mark C.) wrote:
>Uh...I hate to break this to you but, a lot of the atheists here
>used to be theists. They have done their share of research
>and have considered the whole religion thing a big lie.
Based upon what "rationalism" my rationalist friend?
What rational steps of logic and reason did you
follow to convince yourself regarding the truth
of whether or not God exists?
>Are you sure you're a scientist? This hardly sounds like
>the scientific method to me.
>
SNORT.
Most if not all scientists begin with a presupposition
do they not?
What presupposition(s) did you begin with?
If you were going to set out to prove the existence
of God, what would be your FIRST step?
Did you follow this when YOU set out to convince
yourself one way or another regarding the existence
of God?
Regards,
Scott
NAS 1Cor 15:25-26 For He must reign
until He has put all His enemies under
His feet. The last enemy that will be
abolished is death.
heb...@ibm.net
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:38:19 -0700, chr...@flash.net (Chris Peterson)
>wrote:
>
>>Oh, I'm all for rationalizing things away. Let's hear a few of your
>>personal stories. You aren't afraid to share them are you?
>No Chris I gave you a go but you are a waste of space.
>Bye.
>AJ
The correct response AJ. Chris was not dealing with
the issue raised.
Come back and talk to me Chris. Your empty assertions
left a big hole in the conversation.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>
Hi Jim,
Come play with me in "Strategies for dealing with Atheists".
So far your compatriots aren't holding up too well.
Scott
Norman Doering
news:35ee6...@news1.ibm.net
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
> In <A2.72.mx1N1T...@nospam.nowhere>,
> Mark C. <M...@nospam.nowhere> writes:
>>
>> Hoo-boy! I just love it when they claim that they
>> are "Chosen by God".
>>
>>> AJ wrote:
>>> I am an extreme rationalist
>>
>> It shows. So, show us a rational reason to believe
>> in a god.
>
> You (Mark C.) wrote:
>> Uh...I hate to break this to you but, a lot of the atheists here
>> used to be theists. They have done their share of research
>> and have considered the whole religion thing a big lie.
>
> Based upon what "rationalism" my rationalist friend?
http://www.widomaker.com/~piso/html/hope.html
http://www.widomaker.com/~piso/html/feartrap.html
> What rational steps of logic and reason did you
> follow to convince yourself regarding the truth
> of whether or not God exists?
God. The religious texts I've looked at all read like fairy
tales and myths. I don't accept belief in anything without
examination. The God concept (depending on how it's defined)
does not stand up to examination.
> Are you sure you're a scientist? This hardly sounds like
> the scientific method to me. SNORT.
shame to him " (Proverbs 18:13, NKJV)
> Most if not all scientists begin with a presupposition
> do they not?
But they're stuck with them anyway. Presuppositions is why it took
an Einstein to see past Newton's laws and come up with a counter
intuitive description of the universe. Presuppositions is why
tools like Occam's Razor are used to get rid of them. Cutting away
everything in a theory, in a view of the world, but the core
essentials with Occam's Razor. All arguments should be weighed for
their own sake, based on their own evidences and logical
consistencies. One tries to leave all "presuppositions" aside and
consider only how to explain the data in the simplest and most
elegant way.
> What presupposition(s) did you begin with?
you mean something I don't? The list is everything one thinks one
has learned about life over everyday of one's experience. But
that's not what you're asking, is it? You want to know what frame
work of ideas could lead one to reject the concept of God....
right? But why do you call them "presuppositions" ?
The framework of ideas, experiences... Let's start with the
basics. Often as a child the only proposed answer to my questions
was "faith." Faith is a cop-out, an admission that the so-called
"truths" of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason.
When I read the Bible I felt that both God and Jesus failed to
live up to their own hype and preaching. God judges man for his
arrogance and murder -- but God is himself the most arrogant
killer in the book. Jesus tells us "to love thy neighbor" and
"that by their fruits we shall know them." And what are Jesus's
fruits? He damns those who don't believe him to hell, gets killed,
and becomes the figure head for a murderous religion.
> If you were going to set out to prove the existence
> of God, what would be your FIRST step?
> Did you follow this when YOU set out to convince
> yourself one way or another regarding the existence
> of God?
AJ
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok Sterling ..
>>>>>Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
>>>>>being a baby?
>>>>
>Non sequitor. The person was contradicting the claim that "no one is born an
>atheist" and supporting the argument by indicating the definition of
>"atheist".
>There is nothing in that simple argument which suggests an attitude that one
>does not "advance" beyond being a baby. When stated in the way you have
>stated it, it is not only irrelevant to the statement which was made, it is
>insulting in that you are not delineating what you mean by "advanced",
>suggesting that maturity of any sort is out of reach for atheists.
Talk to Dr Ron he is in America.
>>Dr Ron Rhodes.
>>He is not listening ..he is in America.
>>I may attempt an answer ..although I do not agree with his approaches
>>to Atheists.
>
>
>What is it you don't agree with?
His approach that we need to convince Atheists.
>>>The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>>
>>Ignorance of God? In a conscious sense yes.
>
>
>Ignorance of everything except, perhaps, the sound of mother's voice,
>rooting, and sucking.
Ok ..having explained the meaning of "rooting"
it is quite different in Australia.
>>>Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
>>
>>Ignorant of God in a conscious sense..everyone is at Birth.
>which statement includes the axiomatic idea that God exists.
Everytime the word God is written..does this mean we are confessing he
exists? better not to write the word, meaningless comment IMHO.
>Something which you haven't demonstrated.
>Do you remain ignorant of Krishna? Everyone is at birth. Wodin? Allah?
>Shiva? Herne?
>You see, your god is really no different for us than any of the other gods
>believed in by other theists.
You surely have not demonstrated that in your statement.
>>>The question is, once born, does one "advance."
>>
>>To where? belief in God I suppose.
>>Some do as is the will and plan of God.
>
>
> I can't even decide which God you mean.
How can you be expected to ..I thought God did not exist.
Be careful to say "mythical" before God.
You will then be a better Atheist.
There is only one God as far as I am concerned.
This is Aus. Religion.Christian.
>Which of the thousands of
>gods out there are you suggesting has it in mind that some people will come
>to worship it? If it is a Christian/Pauline god, which of the variations?
>One in which Mosaic Law still applies? One based in faith alone? One based
>in faith and works? An exotic? You seem to believe in predestination and God
>willfully affecting the minds of men according to his plan, or have I
>misinterpreted?
Question questions questions.
I am an Orthodox Protestant Christian OK...
>>>The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>>>raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>>>beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>
>
>Which implies what you have not demonstrated: existence of God.
Who Dr Ron Rhodes?
>Here is a progression you may wish to consider as well. If you find it
>insulting at all, do not blame me, as I am merely demonstrating how your
>logic can be extended:
>Infancy: ignorance, total lack of awareness of Santa Claus. a-Santa-ist
>Childhood: Faith. Belief in Santa Claus and desire to please Santa Claus.
>Santa-ist
>Late childhood: Loss of belief in Santa. Mourning for the memory. Seeker.
>Adolescence: No more belief in Santa. Perhaps a sadistic streak causes the
>person to tell children that Santa isn't real. Infidel.
>Maturity: Acceptance that Santa doesn't exist, but with knowledge of what
>Santa meant to the person. Benevolent attitude towards those who continue to
>believe, and an attempt to continue to represent the ideals that the myth
>represented. Freethinking a-Santa-ist.
>
>Does it occur to you that, perhaps, a similar progression is made in the
>lives of atheists and some of us are watching, hoping that Christians step
>beyond the "little children" point in their progression?
I hope Ron will answer you.
>>It is a poor argument IMHO.
>>Yours is developing better.
>>
>>>The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>>>remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>
>
>Or, perhaps, they grow beyond the need for a god for which they have seen no
>objective proof.
>
You have this lot a bit mixed up Sterling.
I think you are answered Scotts' question.
>>Knowledge of who God is supposed to be? ..then yes.
>>Belief in God...no.
>>They would not then be Atheists.
>
>
>And yet, they may have been theists and realized that theism was empty for
>them.
>>>They never perform research with regard to the
>>>existence of God.
>
>
>Ahem. Engage any of the regulars in alt.atheism (you'll recognize them by
>their numbers) in conversations about what they have done to look for God in
>their lives and you will see that you are sadly mistaken here.
We would be not wasting my time.
I am only interested in Christianity.
This will narrow the field somewhat.
>I, for one, have read the Bible through only once, alas.
You have no chance of understanding it unless you believe.
It is spiritually discerned.Christianity is a belief system.
A once through read is absolutely without use or purpose.
>I have spoken with
>theists over twelve years in my life.
>I have had myself baptized, I have
>knelt down and prayed, I have begged the empty dark for a sign of anything.
>I have sat still and meditated, waiting for the "still, small voice", and I
>have participated in the rituals of several churches, a synagogue, and two
>covens.
You are one heck of a mixed up guy.
What orthodox churches have you been to?
>How much have you done to search for Krishna to make sure you haven't picked
>the wrong one?
Got it wrong Sterling..he picked me..
>>Agreed Scott. I think you could help here..from a prophesy POV.
>>However I doubt if any are seriously interested or have enough
>>motivation with respect to attention span.
>
>
>Re: the subject.
>Posting insulting generalities about atheists to an atheist newsgroup would
>not rank high on the list of successful "Strategies for dealing with
>Atheists."
Agreed but it is the truth and it may set someone free.
But I doubt it, Look at your adhoc attempts to find God..the ones you
class as research.
>>Give them an example.
>>But let them ask first.
>
>
>Which of the many prophecies is it going to be? Is it going to be one which
>hasn't happened yet? Is it going to be one involving Matthew and his faulty
>understanding of the messiahnic prophecies (including, of course, the idea
>that a virgin/young woman would give birth, a prophecy fulfilled right there
>in the book of Isaiah)? One of the prophecies made and fulfilled in the OT,
>when editors and translators have had plenty of time to cut out the ones
>which didn't work? The prophecies which are so vague that they can and have,
>indeed, have been applied to anything by apocalyptic preachers of every
>generation since the one Jesus said would not pass away before his return?
>Or do you have something new?
>Please tell me that it is the last.
That is up to Scott.
I will not second guess him.
Best if you do some research on the relief of Damascus by General
Allenby.I am not saying you will find it convincing..however somedody
recognised that it would happen quite a few years before it did. but I
do not really care . It is not part of any proof I need.
>>>They never search for truth with regard to the
>>>existence of God.
>
>
>Or, perhaps, they have already arrived at it and are waiting for you to
>catch up?
Doubt it ..without faith it will not happen.
>>Agreed to a point.But most are looking for reasons to deny that god
>>exists..they stop when they think they have found one..and give
>>themselves a pat on the back.which is strange.
>
> I, for one, have spent the better part of my life looking for
>something to match any of the multitudinous definitions for "god" I have
>heard. Idols and the sun notwithstanding, I have found nothing.
Perhaps you are not chosen .
>When an atheist pokes a hole in one of your arguments, it is not because he
>is looking for "reasons to deny god exists", it is because he is testing the
>evidence you offer for belief.
There is none. It is a belief system not a logic system.
Revelation comes from the Bible to a believer.
> The fact that a hole opens right up is not a
>fault of the atheist, it is a fault of the argument and, perhaps, a fault of
>your god, should it exist, for not providing you with an argument to
>overcome any possible objection.
Don't need one.Why should I want to convince you of anything.
God will do the convincing if you are in his plan.
>If the evidence you present is faulty for whatever reason, be it that it is
>a "logical" argument based on logical fallicies, an appeal to faulty
>science, or an emotional appeal based on false assumptions about the
>motivations of the person to whom you are appealing, then it is not
>evidence. Don't blame the atheist for your failings.
I am not providing you with any evidence. I will defend the
infallibility of the Bible to the best of my ability.
>As far as the "pat on the back" goes, perhaps there are those who do so. I
>pat myself on the back for educating someone when I can and for learning
>something from them whenever I can.
Well learn this ..there is only one God..he chooses us in eternity
past. If you are chisen you will get to know about it.
>>As a Christian should
>>I be looking for reasons why God does not exist ?
>
>Certainly. Are you not exhorted in your Bible to test your faith when you
>can?
No. What scripture and verse.
>>.Don't think so.. it
>>is a belief system...I am a believer not a doubting Thomas..
>
>
>Thomas had his doubts swept clean by evidence he considered valid and
>substantial.
So do christians when they start to understand the Bible.
>He did not simply say "OK, I believe you" and do you think he
>would have ceased his doubting had he discovered that the wounds were merely
>stage makeup and the man before him was not Jesus? Why do you deny atheists
>this sort of evidence? Why do you accuse us of being infantile for wanting
>something substantial?
I don't think I did.
Because you do not understand the Bible. You only will if you are
chosen.
>>>They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>>>the existence of God.
>>
>>They do.. they conclude that God does not exist.. before they look at
>>the evidence.
>
>
>This is ironic, to say the least. You have concluded that you know the
>motives of an entire group of people with one binding feature "lack of
>belief in god or gods" and you have done so before you looked at the
>evidence.
I am talking about the one true God.
I believe you have not looked at the evidence properly either.
You see the point is you are not equiped to ..until you are filled
with the holy spirit.This will only happen if you believe.
A circular argument granted..but i did not make the rules.
>>>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>>>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>>
>>True.
>
>
>Are you interested in the truth?
I was chosen Sterling.
I was given the truth.
AJ
heb...@ibm.net
>
>There is nothing in that simple argument which suggests an attitude that one
>does not "advance" beyond being a baby. When stated in the way you have
>stated it, it is not only irrelevant to the statement which was made, it is
>insulting in that you are not delineating what you mean by "advanced",
>suggesting that maturity of any sort is out of reach for atheists.
>
the lines that atheists do indeed advance in some
areas. The specific questions is, do they advance in
the area of the existence of God or do they remain
as babes with regard to that issue.
>>>The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>>
>>Ignorance of God? In a conscious sense yes.
>
Ignorance of all things. Learning begins sometime
after birth, unless you believe that children "learn"
in the womb. I suppose that is possible.
>>>Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
>>
>>Ignorant of God in a conscious sense..everyone is at Birth.
>
Ignorant of everything. The point being, does one
REMAIN ignorant or does one GAIN knowledge, wisdom
and understanding, i.e. "advance".
>*sigh* which statement includes the axiomatic idea that God exists.
>Something which you haven't demonstrated.
>
I am not ATTEMPTING to demonstrate it. I will commit a
FIRST here and say that according to my experience in
this thread, atheists can sure be THICK.
I am not trying to FORCE GOD down your throats. I am
merely attempting to determine if atheists in general
have actually ATTEMPTED to verify the existence of
God or whether they have chosen as a whole to just
remain as ignorant children in that regard.
>Do you remain ignorant of Krishna? Everyone is at birth.
>Wodin? Allah? Shiva? Herne?
>
Yes indeed. I am ignorant regarding most of these.
Yet I also do not go about boasting of a lack of
belief in them either.
So what is your point? What have YOU concluded
regarding them?
I also rather specifically have not created an AWODIN,
AALLAH, ASHIVA or AHERNE newsgroup to help me
support my lack of belief in them.
>You see, your god is really no different for us than any of
>the other gods believed in by other theists.
>
Irrelevant.
As far as I am concerned your opinions are based upon
ignorance unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.
>*sigh* I can't even decide which God you mean.
>
Good. That is because I do not MEAN any particular God.
>Which of the thousands of gods out there are you
>suggesting has it in mind that some people will come
>to worship it?
>
Where did I ever suggest such a thing?
Gee, an atheist creating a straw-man to worship.
What a novel concept.
>If it is a Christian/Pauline god, which of the variations?
>One in which Mosaic Law still applies? One based in faith alone?
>One based in faith and works? An exotic? You seem to believe
>in predestination and God willfully affecting the minds of men
>according to his plan, or have I misinterpreted?
>
Have YOU PERSONALLY through your own research
discounted each and every one of these "gods"?
How?
>>>The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>>>raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>>>beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>
>Which implies what you have not demonstrated:
>existence of God.
>
It does NOT imply the existence of God.
It is a question of the KNOWLEDGE that an atheist
has gained with regard to WHETHER OR NOT God
does exist. If he has no knowledge, can he
honestly make an informed opinion?
>Here is a progression you may wish to consider as well. If you find it
>insulting at all, do not blame me, as I am merely demonstrating how your
>logic can be extended:
>Infancy: ignorance, total lack of awareness of Santa Claus. a-Santa-ist
>
No problem here, we all start out like this.
>Childhood: Faith. Belief in Santa Claus and desire to please Santa Claus.
>Santa-ist
>
Gained HOW? Did he SEE Santa? Was he TOLD about Santa?
Did he spend four years in school studying Santa?
Is this really "faith"?
Can you somehow equate all this to a personal experience
of your own search for God to give it more relevance?
>Late childhood: Loss of belief in Santa. Mourning for the memory.
>Seeker.
>
Why the LOSS of belief? Did Santa stop coming?
Did someone TELL him there was no Santa?
Did his four years of education regarding all things
Santa related convince him there was no Santa?
So far all these are truly falling short of making
any relevant point in your favor.
>Adolescence: No more belief in Santa. Perhaps a sadistic streak causes the
>person to tell children that Santa isn't real. Infidel.
>
Rather typical adolscent if you ask me.
Does sound like some atheists I've met though.
None of this is relevant unless somehow he gained more
knowledge since his first loss of belief as a child. How has
his lack of belief been re-inforced?
Perhaps he found others who also did not believe in
Santa and they started an a-santa club to spread the
word and to offer support to others who were having
a difficult time living without Santa.
Perhaps they even felt guilty for abandoning Santa
and needed reassurance that they had done the
right thing.
>Maturity: Acceptance that Santa doesn't exist, but with knowledge of what
>Santa meant to the person.
>
No doubt re-inforced by a further gain of knowledge
regarding the non-existence of Santa. Else what is
the difference between this mature asantist and
the child? What the lack of Santa means to him?
But no more than that?
>Benevolent attitude towards those who continue to believe,
>
aha. I knew we would sooner or later find the difference
between an a-santist and an atheist.
>Does it occur to you that, perhaps, a similar progression is made in the
>lives of atheists and some of us are watching, hoping that Christians step
>beyond the "little children" point in their progression?
>
Yes. In fact this "progression" is a common claim
among atheists, it is just that none have actually
demonstrated how it actually worked out from them
in actual practice.
They have presented it in theory, as have you (what
you guys read this in a book somewhere?), but no
one has yet put forth any data from their own
experience that led them to their lack of belief
in God. This is my challenge.
At which stage in the progression did YOU arrive
at your lack of belief? Based upon WHAT?
Did someone TELL you that God does not exist?
Did God stop showing up on a regular basis in your life?
Did you go to some school and learn there that God
does not exist?
The analogy you give is perfectly acceptable, but where
is the practical application? Why should I accept that
it is an ACCURATE analogy?
>Or, perhaps, they grow beyond the need for a god for which
>they have seen no objective proof.
>
That is the SOLE claim? No objective proof?
What is the measure you used to determine
"objective proof"?
>>>They never perform research with regard to the
>>>existence of God.
>
>Ahem. Engage any of the regulars in alt.atheism (you'll recognize them by
>their numbers) in conversations about what they have done to look for God in
>their lives and you will see that you are sadly mistaken here.
>
Well, so far none of them have come forward?
>I, for one, have read the Bible through only once, alas. I have spoken with
>theists over twelve years in my life. I have had myself baptized, I have
>knelt down and prayed, I have begged the empty dark for a sign of anything.
>I have sat still and meditated, waiting for the "still, small voice", and I
>have participated in the rituals of several churches, a synagogue, and two
>covens.
>
FINALLY! Someone actually lists something they did
in their search for God. Thank you. I will not go into
the details of what you have written at this time, but
I would like to ask you the following:
Of all the things that you have tried, how many of them
would you accept as "objective proof" from a Christian
that God did indeed exist? None? Am I being too harsh?
It seems that I see alot of ridicule of Christians by atheists
for doing these things.
>How much have you done to search for Krishna to make
>sure you haven't picked the wrong one?
>
Zilch <g>. I am happy where I am.
>Re: the subject.
>Posting insulting generalities about atheists to an atheist newsgroup would
>not rank high on the list of successful "Strategies for dealing with
>Atheists."
>
Don't most of them have their minds made up already?
>Which of the many prophecies is it going to be? Is it going to be one which
>hasn't happened yet? Is it going to be one involving Matthew and his faulty
>understanding of the messiahnic prophecies (including, of course, the idea
>that a virgin/young woman would give birth, a prophecy fulfilled right there
>in the book of Isaiah)? One of the prophecies made and fulfilled in the OT,
>when editors and translators have had plenty of time to cut out the ones
>which didn't work? The prophecies which are so vague that they can and have,
>indeed, have been applied to anything by apocalyptic preachers of every
>generation since the one Jesus said would not pass away before his return?
>Or do you have something new?
>Please tell me that it is the last.
>
The last. But you wouldn't believe it because you weren't
there to see it. And besides, you would just claim it was
written after the fact, right?
See AJ, I told you they already had all the stock arguments
against prophecy. But let's see if my answer piqued his
interest. Something new is always a good way to gain interest.
And yes Sterling, prophecies do get abused, badly.
>>>They never search for truth with regard to the
>>>existence of God.
>
>Or, perhaps, they have already arrived at it and are waiting for you to
>catch up?
>
My simple question is, how? How did they arrive
at their conclusions?
>>Agreed to a point.But most are looking for reasons to deny that god
>>exists..they stop when they think they have found one..and give
>>themselves a pat on the back.which is strange.
>
>*sigh* I, for one, have spent the better part of my life looking for
>something to match any of the multitudinous definitions for "god" I have
>heard. Idols and the sun notwithstanding, I have found nothing.
>When an atheist pokes a hole in one of your arguments, it is not because he
>is looking for "reasons to deny god exists", it is because he is testing the
>evidence you offer for belief. The fact that a hole opens right up is not a
>fault of the atheist, it is a fault of the argument and, perhaps, a fault of
>your god, should it exist, for not providing you with an argument to
>overcome any possible objection.
>If the evidence you present is faulty for whatever reason, be it that it is
>a "logical" argument based on logical fallicies, an appeal to faulty
>science, or an emotional appeal based on false assumptions about the
>motivations of the person to whom you are appealing, then it is not
>evidence. Don't blame the atheist for your failings.
>
Again, is the "test" a valid and reasonable one?
That goes back to my question above. In your own search
for God, how many of the things that you tried were "logical"?
How many of the things you tried were "emotional".
Do atheists have a double-standard?
Why would God offer irrefutable proof that he exists?
Is that even possible? What do you think would qualify
as irrefutable? Would it be irrefutable to all?
If your father took a bullet meant for you and died as
a result, would that offer "irrefutable proof" that he
loved you? Wouldn't that determination depend upon
your own heart and mind?
>Thomas had his doubts swept clean by evidence he considered valid and
>substantial. He did not simply say "OK, I believe you" and do you think he
>would have ceased his doubting had he discovered that the wounds were merely
>stage makeup and the man before him was not Jesus? Why do you deny atheists
>this sort of evidence? Why do you accuse us of being infantile for wanting
>something substantial?
>
You see. You have just PROVEN my argument. What Thomas
found valid and substantial is not good enough for everyone.
Even though, if the testimony is to be believed, Thomas saw
and handled the resurrected Lord, not all were willing to
accept HIS word for it. Does it strike you as odd that Jesus
only appeared after His resurrection to those that had believed
in Him BEFORE he was crucified?
>>>They never arrive at any conclusion with regard to
>>>the existence of God.
>
>This is ironic, to say the least. You have concluded that you know the
>motives of an entire group of people with one binding feature "lack of
>belief in god or gods" and you have done so before you looked at the
>evidence.
>
Only the statement above belongs to me. Is it wrong?
What is incorrect about it?
>>>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>>>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>
>Are you interested in the truth?
>
Yes.
But I do not think that you actually provided any
contradictory evidence to counter the following
three claims regarding atheists:
They never perform research with regard to the
existence of God.
They never search for truth with regard to the
existence of God.
They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
the existence of God.
Before you, not one single atheist has provided evidence
to contradict these three statements, and you only
provided a few things that you tried in response to
one of the points.
Does that mean they are generally valid?
Regards,
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>
>>I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
>>an atheist."
>
>>The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>
>
>
Hi Jim,
Welcome to the discussion. I was looking forward
to hearing from you.
As to the above, agreed. At least in principle.
But why didn't you respond "undemonstrated"?
> For example:
>Everyone is born without belief that the earth is flat. True. Everyone is
>born in ignorance. True. Some people come to disbelive that the earth is
>flat. True.
>
Don't know of any personally. Everyone that I know personally
rather believes that the earth is a sphere. Does the belief that
the earth is a sphere automatically make one a disbeliever in a
flat earth? Can one be both? Can the earth be both flat and a
sphere?
>Can one then conclude that those who disbelieve that the earth
>is flat are ignorant? No.
>
Ah. Ah. That depends, doesn't it? Wouldn't that depend on
the method and data that those who came to disbelieve in
a flat earth used to arrive at their conclusion that the earth
was not flat?
Perhaps they just one day "decided" that they would no
longer accept the thesis that the earth was flat. No study
involved, no actual evidence or research. Just a flat
decision that they would cease to believe that the earth
was flat. Perhaps they just wanted to be obstinant.
Would you consider their "lack of belief" in a flat earth
"reasonable"? Would that determination be based upon
what you knew personally about whether or not the
earth was flat, or could the mere fact that they did
not examine the issue before arriving at a conclusion
condemn them as ignorant?
Is it possible to be both correct AND ignorant?
>>The question is, once born, does one "advance."
>
>Of course, if by advance you mean increasing in knowledge.
>
Yes, that is close enough to what I mean.
Wisdom, knowledge, education, experience.
>>The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>>raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>>beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>
>And that question is as quickly answered.
>
Um. How? I missed it. Was it that quick?
How do atheists proceed along the path from the infantile
lack of belief in the existence of God to an educated, informed
and knowledgeable lack of belief in the existence of God?
This has yet to be demonstrated by an atheist.
Will you be the first?
>>The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>>remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>
>Not demonstrated.
>
Doesn't have to be. I do not have to show that an
infant has no knowledge of nuclear physics to be
able to make the claim that an infant has no
knowledge of nuclear physics and have it considered
a reasonable claim.
Someone else could disagree with me and claim that
the infant does have knowledge of nuclear physics.
Which one of us would be more likely to be believed?
It was the original claim of an atheist that a baby
has a lack of belief in the existence of God. Or,
more specifically, "everyone is born as an atheist."
So it was an atheist who made the original claim,
not me. Can you demonstrate that atheists "advance"
in the area of knowledge of the existence of God?
That they "gain" additional knowledge and wisdom
regarding the existence of God?
Are you admitting that atheists do NOT progress
to their lack of belief but instead remain as they
were as an infant, with complete lack of belief
throughout their entire life?
>>They never perform research with regard to the
>>existence of God.
>
>Undemonstrated.
>
Doesn't have to be demonstrated. If the claim is
false, prove it.
>>They never search for truth with regard to the
>>existence of God.
>
>Undemonstrated.
>
You are truly disappointing. Is this your stock answer
to everything?
>>They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>>the existence of God.
>
>Undemonstrated.
>
Likewise. If you can offer no contradictory evidence,
the claim is axiomatic. By definition, atheism requires
no conclusion regarding the existence of God or gods,
Which is exactly what I stated above. You know that
full well, which is why you resort to these pseudo-answers.
Atheists enjoy pretending to be intelligent and informed
on the subject of the existence of God, but by definition
they are not. I am just seeking to point this out.
>>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>
>Sorry, but your entire argument collapsed.
>
Hardly. All you did was say "undemonstrated."
Which was full well enough to show the validity
of my claims. A statement can be validated by
the arguments raised against it.
Your flat earth argument clearly shows the
validity of my claims. You are willing to address
them in allegorical terms relating to a lack of
belief in a flat earth but you cannot answer
them directly? What gives?
Plenty of atheists have freely admitted that they
are in the same state as babes when it comes to
the existence of God. In fact, this entire thread
that I started began with a statement by an atheist
that everyone is born an atheist. I guess I should
have responded "undemonstrated."
Are you embarrassed to admit that atheists arrive
at conclusions regarding the existence of God?
Are you going to also claim "undemonstrated"
to this question?
I noticed that you responded to an earlier post of
one of my colleagues, but I did not see a single
instance of "undemonstrated" from you in that
post.
What's wrong? You clam up when you cannot just
fling empty rhetoric?
Regards,
Scott
Don Kresch
etched in the space-time continuum
>On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 02:32:15 +0200, Jim Cheesman <mog...@arrakis.es>
>wrote:
>
>
>>> Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
>>> believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
>>> not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
>>> can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
>>
>>Are you impying that all true christians have alzheimer's?
>
>Is this a well thought out response Jim?
>You clearly have not understood.
Rather, he understood perfectly. He was just tweaking you a bit.
Apparently, you have no sense of humor.
>They are foolish things to one who does not comprehend the Gospel.
Actually, he knows it means that to be a good little xer, you must never
question anything and accept everything your preacher or the wholly babble
tells you. That's what being like a child is--they accept everything their
parents say as fact.
>I can understand... you have no understanding of things spiritual.
I understand it only as long as spiritual pertains to man's mind.
Otherwise, "spiritual" is merely a code-word for "bullshit".
Don
alt.atheism atheist #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
I'm the bastard who killed Kenny
AJ
rot13....@rkrpcp.pbz.getridof.com (Don Kresch) wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:25:15 GMT, in alt.atheism, p...@wantree.com.au (AJ)
>etched in the space-time continuum
>
>>On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 02:32:15 +0200, Jim Cheesman <mog...@arrakis.es>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
>>>> believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
>>>> not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
>>>> can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
>>>
>>>Are you impying that all true christians have alzheimer's?
>>
>>Is this a well thought out response Jim?
>>You clearly have not understood.
>
> Rather, he understood perfectly. He was just tweaking you a bit.
>Apparently, you have no sense of humor.
I am very amused by the Atheists who have appeared here.
No you have a bad sense of logic you made a poor deduction from
limited facts.
>>They are foolish things to one who does not comprehend the Gospel.
>
> Actually, he knows it means that to be a good little xer, you must never
>question anything and accept everything your preacher or the wholly babble
>tells you.
You got that wrong too buddy.
>That's what being like a child is--they accept everything their
>parents say as fact.
Until they are about 15. Then their parents are idiots for the next
five years.
You do not understand children either.
>>I can understand... you have no understanding of things spiritual.
>
> I understand it only as long as spiritual pertains to man's mind.
>Otherwise, "spiritual" is merely a code-word for "bullshit".
No.... for Atheist.
Thats all we have had from you
waste of space.
AJ
Don Kresch
space-time continuum
>The best tactic is the good old gospel, God's love for
>them, and the example of your own changed life, which
>no one can deny.
Wanna fuckin bet?
I deny that any sort of deity changed your life, given that there simply
is no such thing as a deity. Wanna know who/what changed your life, if at all?
YOU. You changed your life. You did it by yourself, granted with some delusion
that a sky-daddy exists. But it all came from you.
Don Kresch
etched in the space-time continuum
>Now quoting scripture to Atheists is not fruitful..They have not the
>Holy spirit indwelling to be able to comprehend.
What you mean to say is that atheists are far too intelligent to be taken
in by such tripe. What you mean to say is that you are some self-righteous
piece of shit who has forgotten that his mythos commands him to be humble. What
you mean to say is that since atheists do not accept the wholly babble as any
sort of authority, it is useless to quote it to us. What you mean to say is
that you created this holy spirit crap to rationalize your faith.
AJ
>The last. But you wouldn't believe it because you weren't
>there to see it. And besides, you would just claim it was
>written after the fact, right?
>
>See AJ, I told you they already had all the stock arguments
>against prophecy.
You are a prophet.Prophesy rules OK?
God is real ..
>But let's see if my answer piqued his
>interest. Something new is always a good way to gain interest.
>
Have you got any new ones.?
When is the Lord coming back?
That guy in the states Ben?
He might give you a hand here.
AJ
Walksalone
Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered
the following:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:57:29 GMT, walksalone.NODOT.@ala.net
>(Walksalone) wrote:
>>> Of course we are..we.. (Christians) have to believe as a child
>>>believes. These things are foolish things to a wise man. Wise men do
>>>not get into the Kingdom of God until they become as a child.Then they
>>>can be truely wise again...having been given God's wisdom.
>>Aye, confirmation that something was lacking in your grip on the
>>world.
>Well you do not know me Walkalone.
>I have a very good grip on the world ..I live in the real world not in cyberspace.
You seem to be defensive, quite a few xians are for some strange
reason, s'all right. The real world I live in has much to offer, but
I have to go fetch it. & when I die, through my works, good or bad, &
my children, will be how I live on. Seems proper.
>>Not saying bad or good, just missing.
>Wrong I have been everywhere man.
How was your trip through the Mariana Trench, never been there myself.
>> Tis sad that you have
>>the need, but you are not alone. Been long on this group, you would
>>note that the majority held a religious belief at one time, most
>>probably xian, never asked myself.
>
>Don't understand that lot Say no to drugs folks!!
Could break it down to simpler words, but no need for the majority of
the posters to this group. As to drugs, well, I don't go to
churches, so I live a pretty drug free life. Admit I do, aspirin is
in my medicine cabinet, it helps when the rheumatism flares up.
>>Seems that should be an indication
>>that this has all been seen before, probably by some in just about a
>>verbatim form.
>Orthodox Christianity is Dogma.
>Deja moo..heard all that bulldust before.
>It is relevant here as allegorical statement.
Ah, you have seen it as well. How nice. To bad you didn't learn how
to make it appropriate for the group you are talking to.
>>>Very often having believed..Christians move on to the "meat"
>>>of the word of God...off the "milk".
>
>Another allegorical statement..scriptural too. Right over your head..Zooom.
No, not over the head, not worthy of a reply. Can't argue mythology,
wasn't there at the time of the claimed events.
>>They don't have to.
>>>This is where Scott is at. He no doubt could relate to you prophecies
>>Well, I've noted some of his prophesies. To be honest I was not
>>impressed nor did I read them the same way.
>How could you be expected to? I leave them alone at the moment.
>I feel I would need about three years solid study to have enough
>background to even approach some of the prophesy he is taklin'
Real simple, read prophesy, read claimed fulfillment. Read claimed
fulfillment again. Prophesy either not about claimed fulfillment [Is
53:[?] comes to mind, along with Amos, or any other prophet that is
supposed to have foretold the coming of the boy from Judea.
>>Matter of fact, he just came off a timed filter. Seems he couldn't accept that his POV might
>>be in error. Disremember where & who he was talking to.
>Disremember? Are you Americano? si?
No, mixed breed, been most everywhere, sat down, listened & learned.
>>Maybe his discussion technique has gotten better. Doesn't look like any basic
>>change so far. Still tree on shoulder. Works for him.
>
>A still tree on his shoulder.?
Not A still tree, being you couldn't pick up on the given has in the
above, I retype it for you. No one else seems to need this, but what
the hell.
*Still has a tree on his shoulder.*
That better?
>>>that had come true that are written in the Bible.Would you listen?
>>>>In any case, you make me nauseous with your hateful babble.
>
>>>>++Iikka
>>>Likka I think you have completely missed the point of this post.
>>>I can in no way see it as nauseous..or hateful babble.
>>>I am amazed how you can read it like that.
>>It was akin to a cold fish in the face, & I suspect it was meant that
>>way. There was no respect for any other point of view & an attempt to
>>denigrate the POV of others from the get go. Or is my post a knee
>>jerk reaction?
>
>I think it is. Get rational..I thought Atheists were good at that.
>Ask Scott to give you evidence of God through prophesy ..then blow him
>away.
You may find this concept beyond your immediate ken, but many, myself
included, could really care less about what scott thinks. I wouldn't
find any pleasure in arguing with a bullheaded person. Wanted to do
that I could get married, again.
>>>I think you had a knee-jerk programmed Atheist response.
>>
>>Mayhap it was a bad day & he didn't need any more effluent at this
>>time?
>
>Likka is a male name?
Don't know. More languages than English last I heard.
>> Don't know, why don't you ask him. Seeing where you are
>>posting from, Ha' a good day mate.
>
>Lost me again ..but i'm just a thick Christian..it is not hard.
True, read your news groups. Appears you need all the good wishes you
can get, & wishing good harms none.
>AJ
>
>>Hindu speaking to a Born again christian: Of course I am
>>born again. And again and again and again.
>
>Good one ..jokes may be your forte.
No, life is my forte, but pretty good so far, expect to be about the
same until I leave my children behind. But I will grant you that
having a sense of humor is just about mandatory when dealing with the
xian mythology.
Fantasy: The impossible made possible.
Science Fiction: The impossible made probable.
Author unkown?
Walksalone
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> Having stopped their contemplations on the
mystery of life & uttered the following:
Aye, I thank you I do Mr. Crowe, I dislike using words of one syllable
in conversation, but you have prevented the need of me doing so with
regards to AJ. I was beginning to have doubts as to what level to try
to talk with him, or was he just deliberately argumentive. The later
I'm beginning to suspect. So a tip of the hat & may a smile be the
bane of your day.
>AJ wrote in message <35eded1...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:57:29 GMT, walksalone.NODOT.@ala.net
>>(Walksalone) wrote:
><snip>
>
>>> Tis sad that you have
>>>the need, but you are not alone.
>
>Translation: Too bad you feel that your life is incomplete without a god. At
>least you have company in your need.
>
>>> Been long on this group, you would
>>>note that the majority held a religious belief at one time, most
>>>probably xian, never asked myself.
>
>
>Translation: Had you read the posts in alt.atheism (lurked) before allowing
>yourself to be crossposted there, you would have noticed that most of the
>atheists here are former theists. Most may have been Christian, but I never
>asked.
>
>>Don't understand that lot
>>Say no to drugs folks!!
>
>
>Dealer: Would you like some Drugs Folks(tm)?
>Me: NO!
>
><snip>
>
>>> Don't know, why don't you ask him. Seeing where you are
>>>posting from, Ha' a good day mate.
>>
>>Lost me again ..but i'm just a thick Christian..it is not hard.
>
>
>The newsgroup in the header along with alt.atheism is
>"aus.religion.christian" which seems to be an Australian Christian
>newsgroup. He was making an attempt at courtesy.
>
>--Sterling Crowe
>
A shy failure is nobler than an immodest success.
Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931) [Sand and Foam]
Jim Sarbeck
>In <MPG.1057bf704...@news.flash.net>, chr...@flash.net (Chris
Peterson) writes:
>>AJ wrote:
...
>>> OK lets call you on this one...
>>> What research have you specifically carried out.?
>>
>>Enough to realize that christianity is not any more believable
>>to me than any other religion is.
>>
>This isn't very specific Chris. And we weren't talking about
>Christianity. We were discussing whether atheists ever even
>make an attempt to resolve the issue of the existence of God.
Then it's assumed we can substitute for the term 'God', terms like 'gods'
or 'goddesses' or 'deities' or 'Zeus' or 'Ahura-Mazda' or 'Vishnu' or
'Wodin' or 'IPU' or 'pixies'. Which entities do you accept? What
strategies are you applying to your own disbelief in all these things?
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
Posting from Alt.Atheism. Will freely trim if > 5 ng's
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
AJ
rot13....@rkrpcp.pbz.getridof.com (Don Kresch) wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 01:59:24 GMT, in alt.atheism, p...@wantree.com.au (AJ)
>etched in the space-time continuum
>
>
>>Now quoting scripture to Atheists is not fruitful..They have not the
>>Holy spirit indwelling to be able to comprehend.
>
> What you mean to say is that atheists are far too intelligent to be taken
>in by such tripe. What you mean to say is that you are some self-righteous
>piece of shit who has forgotten that his mythos commands him to be humble.
Rubbish Don I am not a wipe your feet here man.Don't know the Bible do
you.
>you mean to say is that since atheists do not accept the wholly babble as any
>sort of authority, it is useless to quote it to us. What you mean to say is
>that you created this holy spirit crap to rationalize your faith.
Yes Lord Don.You are right oh master,
I will worship you now.
Bye Don
Jim Sarbeck
>These are my assertions regarding atheists:
>
>They never perform research with regard to the
>existence of God.
Please provide examples of what it means to you to perform resaerch with
regard to the existence of deity. IOW, if you saw someone doing such
research, what specifically would he or she be doing?
>They never search for truth with regard to the
>existence of God.
Ditto.
>They never arrive at any conlcusion with regard to
>the existence of God.
That can simply be refuted. I am one of the atheists who admits to having
my belief by faith, as follows: Having been raised a Christian, I oneday
looked inside myself. I saw no belief in deity. That makes me what is
called a 'weak atheist', more or less. I then committed to myself to form
no belief in deity unless it was certain and sure, to study the way to life
without such a belief, as lived by others who have not or had not a belief
in deity or lived as if it made no difference, and to thereby live the life
of one who believes there is no deity. I notice that my life is improved by
that act of faith, and this verifies for me that there is no deity. That is
a conclusion.
>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>Show me to be wrong.
I doubt I will show you to yourself to be wrong. But you might admit that
you are generalizing about people who you do not know as people. So you are
objectifying people under a label.
Walksalone
their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered the following:
>In <52.22.mx1J1e...@nospam.nowhere>, Mark C. <M...@nospam.nowhere> writes:
>>
>>Uh...I hate to break this to you but, a lot of the atheists here
>>used to be theists. They have done their share of research
>>and have considered the whole religion thing a big lie.
>>
>Yes. This is being proclaimed quite vociferously.
>
>So far NOT ONE has actually presented the "research" that
>they claim to have done with regard to the existence of God.
>
>I would be more inclined to believe you if one or more
Translation:
You expect & would except only such a statement.
>of these individuals would step up to the plate and put
>to rest the notion that atheists don't even ATTEMPT
>to test for or research the existence of God.
Before I wave good-bye to you & AJ, let me point out a minor thing to
you. Not all atheists come from the xian path. Many have been bored
enough to research the deity question, I am not one. Having read
mythologies came to a conclusion. That conclusion is likely to follow
for anyone that does study mythologies, of which xianity is but one.
>Would it be that great of a stroke to their ego to
>just admit that I am right? That they remain in their
But you are not even close to correct. There are people that can say
I was wrong in what I believed. Atheists that had a religious path
are in that group.
>childlike, unbelieving, uninformed, uneducated, state
>on this ONE issue. That they remain as infants in
>this aspect of their knowledge.
No, they become adults in knowledge. I realize that you don't believe
that, & that's alright too.
>These are my assertions regarding atheists:
No, those are your presumptions.
>They never perform research with regard to the
>existence of God.
Research in what way, notice I do you never state that. Be for
someone else to observe any answer you give. I for one see no need in
expending resources to prove a non-entity.
>They never search for truth with regard to the
>existence of God.
You haven't defined either truth or god & want someone else to do the
legwork for you. Doesn't work that way.
>They never arrive at any conlcusion with regard to
>the existence of God.
No, but they do arrive at a conclusion of the non-existece of any
deity form, including whatever you call god.
>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
Actually, as right down the line, you are in error on this also. They
have the knowledge of the claim of an entity existing, but elect
through lack of evidence or other perceived data, to simply disregard
the concept. That may well be your problem with atheists, they just
don't care about your brand of god/s. Now anti-theists, well that's a
different group, you will have to ask them what they think. But
atheist or anti-thedist, they are individuals, so each will have their
own notion on the right of things.
>Show me to be wrong.
You've shown yourself to be wrong with exception of being born
atheist.
<PLONK>
>Scott
The Sceptic
My Father Christmas passed away
When I was barely seven.
At twenty-one, alack-a-day,
I lost my hope of heaven.
Yet not in either lies the curse:
The hell of it's because
I don't know which loss hurt the worse,
My God or Santa Claus.
Robert W Service, British poet
AJ
(Walksalone) wrote:
>Ah, you have seen it as well. How nice. To bad you didn't learn how
>to make it appropriate for the group you are talking to.
The group I was talking to was not your group.
Somebody cross posted and we now have half of America here.
I spent a few weeks there last year ..wonderful place.
It is of course much better than Australia.
You would not want to come here.
>>Disremember? Are you Americano? si?
>
>No, mixed breed, been most everywhere, sat down, listened & learned.
Scottish.I ken noo.
>>>Maybe his discussion technique has gotten better. Doesn't look like any basic
>>>change so far. Still tree on shoulder. Works for him.
>>
>>A still tree on his shoulder.?
>
>Not A still tree, being you couldn't pick up on the given has in the
>above, I retype it for you. No one else seems to need this, but what
>the hell.
>*Still has a tree on his shoulder.*
>That better?
Aye much better.
>>I think it is. Get rational..I thought Atheists were good at that.
>>Ask Scott to give you evidence of God through prophesy ..then blow him
>>away.
>
>You may find this concept beyond your immediate ken, but many, myself
>included, could really care less about what scott thinks. I wouldn't
>find any pleasure in arguing with a bullheaded person. Wanted to do
>that I could get married, again.
You are not hear to argue are you ?
Goodness us Christians don't do that sort of thing.
>>Hindu speaking to a Born again christian: Of course I am
>>>born again. And again and again and again.
>>
>>Good one ..jokes may be your forte.
>
>No, life is my forte, but pretty good so far, expect to be about the
>same until I leave my children behind. But I will grant you that
>having a sense of humor is just about mandatory when dealing with the
>xian mythology.
Or did it deal with you?
AJ
Jim Sarbeck
>In <cjplace-ya0240800...@news2.batnet.com>,
cjp...@batnet.nospam.com (Jim Sarbeck) writes:
>>In article <35edc...@news1.ibm.net>, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>>>I wrote to whoever wrote this, "everyone is born as
>>>an atheist."
>>
>>>The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>>
>>>Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
>>
>>It does not follow logically, if that's what you mean.
>>
>Hi Jim,
>
>Welcome to the discussion. I was looking forward
>to hearing from you.
>
>As to the above, agreed. At least in principle.
>
>But why didn't you respond "undemonstrated"?
Please elaborate. What question are you suggesting be asked about your couplet?
[regarding people coming to disbelieve that the earth is flat.]
>>Can one then conclude that those who disbelieve that the earth
>>is flat are ignorant? No.
>>
>Ah. Ah. That depends, doesn't it? Wouldn't that depend on
>the method and data that those who came to disbelieve in
>a flat earth used to arrive at their conclusion that the earth
>was not flat?
>
>Perhaps they just one day "decided" that they would no
>longer accept the thesis that the earth was flat. No study
>involved, no actual evidence or research. Just a flat
>decision that they would cease to believe that the earth
>was flat. Perhaps they just wanted to be obstinant.
>
>Would you consider their "lack of belief" in a flat earth
>"reasonable"? Would that determination be based upon
>what you knew personally about whether or not the
>earth was flat, or could the mere fact that they did
>not examine the issue before arriving at a conclusion
>condemn them as ignorant?
If these folks decided to adopt a principle of thought not to believe X if
X is unevidenced, and saw no evidence of a flat earth, then there would be
reason and logic in their thought process. One can argue over the
principles of thought that people choose and why they choose them.
Untimately there are foundational beliefs such as in the principles of
logic that cannot be dug beneath to find ratioanal bases. If you want to
say that the entire superstructure is therefore baseless, you can. That is
why I say that it is a matter of raw choice. But that is not the same as
saying that the choice is the wrong choice.
>Is it possible to be both correct AND ignorant?
Yes.
>>>The question is, once born, does one "advance."
>>>The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>>>raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>>>beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>>
>>And that question is as quickly answered.
>>
>Um. How? I missed it. Was it that quick?
It had to wait till you agreed that 'advance' means increasing in "Wisdom,
knowledge, education, experience." Just ask yourself if I could have known
what I know now about the world -- specifically that there is no necessity
to invoke deity to understand how to live in it -- and whether I knew that
as a newborn. Of course you can deny that atheists have not advanced in
these ways or they would not be atheists, but that is begging the question.
>How do atheists proceed along the path from the infantile
>lack of belief in the existence of God to an educated, informed
>and knowledgeable lack of belief in the existence of God?
By experiencing the world without that belief and finding nothing that
drives them toward that belief. In contrast, the belief that we need to
breathe oxygen to live becomes impressed upon us.
>
>This has yet to be demonstrated by an atheist.
>
>Will you be the first?
To your satisfaction? I seriously doubt it.
>>>The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>>>remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>>
>>Not demonstrated.
>>
>Doesn't have to be. I do not have to show that an
>infant has no knowledge of nuclear physics to be
>able to make the claim that an infant has no
>knowledge of nuclear physics and have it considered
>a reasonable claim.
You are analogizing in reverse, from state of being (infant) to state of
knowledge (nuclear physics) wheras your claim was from state of knowledge
to state of being. Also, a person who is ignorant of nuclear physics can
believe that nuclei exist. The person who is ignorant of deity, I suggest
you will agree, has no belief that deity exists, At least, this is
consistent with your earlier statements.
>It was the original claim of an atheist that a baby
>has a lack of belief in the existence of God. Or,
>more specifically, "everyone is born as an atheist."
I don't defend this claim. I think it is nonsense.
>>>They never perform research with regard to the
>>>existence of God.
>>
>>Undemonstrated.
>>
>Doesn't have to be demonstrated. If the claim is
>false, prove it.
I place BOP (burden of proof) on he that wants to convince. In that sense,
if you have no desire to convince me that your claim is true, it is as if
you did not make it.
>
>
>>>They never search for truth with regard to the
>>>existence of God.
>>
>>Undemonstrated.
>>
>You are truly disappointing. Is this your stock answer
>to everything?
For stock claims, yes it is.
>>>They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>>>the existence of God.
>>
>>Undemonstrated.
>>
>Likewise. If you can offer no contradictory evidence,
>the claim is axiomatic. By definition, atheism requires
>no conclusion regarding the existence of God or gods,
It requires a conclusion that one lacks belief in deity. You see, you have
made the mistake of assuming all atheists believe babies can properly be
called atheists. If you had the interest in searching dejanews, you would
see me scoffing at this idea. We are not all alike.
>Atheists enjoy pretending to be intelligent and informed
>on the subject of the existence of God, but by definition
>they are not. I am just seeking to point this out.
That logically implies that to be intelligent and informed is to be a
theist. I suppose you feel no need to support that implication. (That's
another way of saying 'Undemonstrated.')
>
>A statement can be validated by
>the arguments raised against it.
Are you going for the "Theist Quote of the Month" contest?
>
>Plenty of atheists have freely admitted that they
>are in the same state as babes when it comes to
>the existence of God. In fact, this entire thread
>that I started began with a statement by an atheist
>that everyone is born an atheist. I guess I should
>have responded "undemonstrated."
Absolutely. You would have gotten the standard argument that equates a
state of unformed belief/unbelief with a state of unbelief, and chooses a
particular but not logically necessary single switch on/off model of
belief. The debate rages over whether the FAQ definition on alt.atheism
should contain the word 'deliberate'.
>Are you embarrassed to admit that atheists arrive
>at conclusions regarding the existence of God?
What ever gave you that idea?
>I noticed that you responded to an earlier post of
>one of my colleagues, but I did not see a single
>instance of "undemonstrated" from you in that
>post.
I have a monthly quota and was saving them for a barrage effect.
heb...@ibm.net
>>In <MPG.1057bf704...@news.flash.net>, chr...@flash.net (Chris
>Peterson) writes:
>>>AJ wrote:
>>>> OK lets call you on this one...
>>>> What research have you specifically carried out.?
>>>
>>>Enough to realize that christianity is not any more believable
>>>to me than any other religion is.
>>>
>>This isn't very specific Chris. And we weren't talking about
>>Christianity. We were discussing whether atheists ever even
>>make an attempt to resolve the issue of the existence of God.
>
>Then it's assumed we can substitute for the term 'God', terms like 'gods'
>or 'goddesses' or 'deities' or 'Zeus' or 'Ahura-Mazda' or 'Vishnu' or
>'Wodin' or 'IPU' or 'pixies'.
>
YES. Feel free to include ANY God or gods or variations
thereof properly classed by popular culture as gods.
Which one or ones have you researched and formed
an opinion (i.e. drawn a conclusion) regarding?
Though, I don't see how pixies apply.
>Which entities do you accept? What
>strategies are you applying to your own disbelief in all these things?
>
Mine is simple. I accept the existence of ONE God and
ONE God only. The God that I accept denies the existence
of other Gods and I accept this by faith and trust in Him.
Now, I wouldn't expect an atheist to use this argument or
claim with regard to their beliefs, so I rather think it
irrelevant to this discussion.
Let's stick with what athiests have concluded please.
Regards,
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>
>>These are my assertions regarding atheists:
>>
>>existence of God.
>
>IOW, if you saw someone doing such research, what
>specifically would he or she be doing?
>
"research" in any way you see fit. I am not "examining"
you or your beliefs or lack thereof according to some
"standard." I just wish to know how atheists arrive at
their conclusions regarding the existence of God.
Fair enough?
>>They never search for truth with regard to the
>>existence of God.
>
>Ditto.
>
This is as boring as your last line of response,
which consisted of "undemonstrated."
See above.
>>They never arrive at any conlcusion with regard to
>>the existence of God.
>
>That can simply be refuted. I am one of the atheists who admits to having
>my belief by faith, as follows: Having been raised a Christian, I oneday
>looked inside myself. I saw no belief in deity. That makes me what is
>called a 'weak atheist', more or less. I then committed to myself to form
>no belief in deity unless it was certain and sure, to study the way to life
>without such a belief, as lived by others who have not or had not a belief
>in deity or lived as if it made no difference, and to thereby live the life
>of one who believes there is no deity. I notice that my life is improved by
>that act of faith, and this verifies for me that there is no deity. That is
>a conclusion.
>
Thank you. You seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
So you find no conflict in the fact that you have both a
lack of belief in a deity and a belief that there is no deity?
You do not find that inconsistent with atheism?
What do you think of atheists who claim that those
who believe that there is no God/deity are not true
atheists?
So you then would not be one to argue that your "atheism"
is not a "belief" system? Or do you "divorce" your atheism
from your "belief" that there is no God/deity?
Regarding your "inward look". Can you explain WHAT you
were looking for? Were you looking for God? Were you
looking for "belief in God". Would you go so far to say
that you already did not believe in God when you took
your inward look?
Were you looking for the "Christian God"? Had you
already rejected Him?
No offense intended, but a mere inward look seems
mighty scanty evidence from which to draw a conclusion
that there is no God. I don't mean to belittle it, it could
well have been a traumatic time in your life. If so I
apologise.
I have seen many an atheist chide and berate Christians
for their faith on what seems to be much greater evidence
and reflection than what you have described. Taking into
consideration your own method for NOT finding God, do you
think this is fair to Christians?
>>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>
>>Show me to be wrong.
>
>I doubt I will show you to yourself to be wrong. But you might admit that
>you are generalizing about people who you do not know as people. So you are
>objectifying people under a label.
>
That is certainly a possibility, which is why I made a
generalization to begin with. It encourages debate
and refinement of the generalization. Provided one
is "willing" to be refined <g>.
At least you have demonstrated a process that you
followed to arrive at a conclusion from which you
developed a belief.
Regards,
Scott
Jim Sarbeck
>So you find no conflict in the fact that you have both a
>lack of belief in a deity and a belief that there is no deity?
The latter followed the former, upon examination. And the latter is in the
realm of decision, while the former is in the realm of self-observation.
>
>You do not find that inconsistent with atheism?
No, for reason given.
>What do you think of atheists who claim that those
>who believe that there is no God/deity are not true
>atheists?
I don't recall any saying that.
>
>So you then would not be one to argue that your "atheism"
>is not a "belief" system? Or do you "divorce" your atheism
>from your "belief" that there is no God/deity?
I don't.
>
>Regarding your "inward look". Can you explain WHAT you
>were looking for? Were you looking for God? Were you
>looking for "belief in God".
That's it, although the word God is a bit narrow. Deity is better.
>Would you go so far to say
>that you already did not believe in God when you took
>your inward look?
That will do as a way of describing coming to awareness of lack of belief.
>Were you looking for the "Christian God"?
Any deity.
> Had you
>already rejected Him?
What does rejected mean to you?
>
>No offense intended, but a mere inward look seems
>mighty scanty evidence from which to draw a conclusion
>that there is no God.
As I said, it was a two step process of self observation seeing lack of
belief and a faith commitment to belief that deity is non-existence.
>I have seen many an atheist chide and berate Christians
>for their faith on what seems to be much greater evidence
>and reflection than what you have described. Taking into
>consideration your own method for NOT finding God, do you
>think this is fair to Christians?
The simple act of faith is not to be chided or belittled, IMO. Arrogant
proselytizers get feedback on their behavior that is commensurate with
their behavior. What they reap...
heb...@ibm.net
>On or about 3 Sep 1998 09:15:51 GMT heb...@ibm.net Having stopped
>their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered the following:
>
>>In <52.22.mx1J1e...@nospam.nowhere>, Mark C. <M...@nospam.nowhere> writes:
>>>
>>>Uh...I hate to break this to you but, a lot of the atheists here
>>>used to be theists. They have done their share of research
>>>and have considered the whole religion thing a big lie.
>>>
>>Yes. This is being proclaimed quite vociferously.
>>
>>So far NOT ONE has actually presented the "research" that
>>they claim to have done with regard to the existence of God.
>>
>>I would be more inclined to believe you if one or more
>
>Translation:
>You expect & would except only such a statement.
>
>>of these individuals would step up to the plate and put
>>to rest the notion that atheists don't even ATTEMPT
>>to test for or research the existence of God.
>
>Before I wave good-bye to you & AJ, let me point out a minor thing to
>you. Not all atheists come from the xian path. Many have been bored
>enough to research the deity question, I am not one.
>
the sarcasm when I question whether atheists even
put forth a serious attempt. You have just provided
an example of one who didn't.
Many Christians I know put a MUCH GREATER effort
into their faith and belief in God than you put forth
in your unbelief. How does this give you the moral
or logical platform from which to ridicule them for
their beliefs?
>Having read
>mythologies came to a conclusion. That conclusion is likely to follow
>for anyone that does study mythologies, of which xianity is but one.
>
Mythologies seem to me to be by nature, myths.
Not exactly the place I would go searching for God.
But hey, each to his own.
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that Christianity
is on myth among the many? Perhaps you would like to
share the mythology which you read that most closely
resembles Christianity.
What "Christian" writings have you read?
>>Would it be that great of a stroke to their ego to
>>just admit that I am right? That they remain in their
>
>But you are not even close to correct. There are people that can say
>I was wrong in what I believed. Atheists that had a religious path
>are in that group.
>
Sorry. I missed where you shared what you believed.
Was it in this post? I am serious, no sarcasm. I would
like to know.
>No, they become adults in knowledge. I realize that you don't believe
>that, & that's alright too.
>
Well, from someone who has just admitted to deriving
their understanding of God from mythologies...
It isn't that I don't or wouldn't believe it. It is that
so far only ONE atheist has come forward and shared
how he arrived at his conclusions regarding the
existence of a deity. ONE.
Now, if that is ANY indication of the total amount of
effort that atheists have expended in attempting
to resolve the issue of the existence of God, I
would hardly call it an indication of ADULTHOOD
in knowledge.
Adult knowledge implies developed knowledge.
Most atheists seem to lack any development
of thought with regard to the existence of God.
Therefore based upon my experience thus far
in this thread, most seem rather childlike.
Ironically it reminds me of Christians who
enjoy speaking of their "childlike faith."
>>These are my assertions regarding atheists:
>
>No, those are your presumptions.
>
Not presumed. I am searching for understanding and
put forth an assertion, not a presumption.
Saying there is no God and then living your life
according to that belief is a presumption.
Saying that you have a LACK of a belief in God
and then living your life accordingly is a presumption.
>>They never perform research with regard to the
>>existence of God.
>
>Research in what way, notice I do you never state that. Be for
>someone else to observe any answer you give. I for one see no need in
>expending resources to prove a non-entity.
>
I put no restrictions on "research." The question is how
much effort has been put forth and how much knowledge
has been garnered in the search.
If you expend absolutely no resources, then you are just
like an infant. They also see no sense in putting forth
effort.
No one is asking you to prove a non-entity. To assume
that the term non-entity accurately describes whether
God exists or not is a presumption.
If you put your mind forward to PROVE that God DID
exist, what would be your first step?
Would you assume that He is a non-entity?
>>They never search for truth with regard to the
>>existence of God.
>
>You haven't defined either truth or god & want someone else to do the
>legwork for you. Doesn't work that way.
>
I don't need to define it. That's what gets me about you
"professed" atheists. I am leaving it up to you to define
what is truth regarding the existence of God. I am
leaving it up to you to define what qualifies as God.
You claim to have a lack of belief in God. Well, what
exactly is it that you have a lack of belief in? What
concept or concepts regarding God or God's don't
you believe?
What effort and study did you put forth to arrive at
your conclusions?
If your answer is NONE, a BIG FAT ZERO. So what?
At least be man enough to say it.
Christians don't seem to have the same problem
admitting what their BELIEF in God is based upon.
>>They never arrive at any conlcusion with regard to
>>the existence of God.
>
>No, but they do arrive at a conclusion of the non-existece of any
>deity form, including whatever you call god.
>
Well, thank you for at least admitting that a conclusion
is reached in that regard. Like pulling teeth.
Did you arrive at a personal conclusion? Do you have
first hand knowledge of others who have arrived at
this conclusion?
Please, share with me how the conclusions were reached?
Were they thoughtful, considered, deliberate conclusions
based upon reason and logic?
Did you just say one day, "what the hell, think I'll be an
atheist"?
That is what this thread is all about. The conclusion
regarding the existence of God and how it was reached.
Was it arrived at childishly, or in an adult and scientific
manner?
>>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>
>Actually, as right down the line, you are in error on this also. They
>have the knowledge of the claim of an entity existing, but elect
>through lack of evidence or other perceived data, to simply disregard
>the concept.
>
How can they claim a lack of evidence if they have not
studied the evidence. This is what I find entirely contradictory
and unreasonable about what you say. Do atheists, or did
they before they became atheists, generally make an attempt
to examine the evidence? Or do they more generally just sit
back and say, there is none? Do they wait for something to
drop in their lap?
You meantion EVIDENCE but put forth no claim that it is
actually EXAMINED by atheists. Next thing you'll be
claiming there is no evidence to examine because there
is no deity to have evidence of.
>That may well be your problem with atheists, they just
>don't care about your brand of god/s.
>
I do not have a "problem" with atheists as long as they
are consistent and refrain from bashing Christians. I
noticed that you don't meet that criteria.
You seem to enjoy taking potshots at Christians. Why?
It sure seems like most of them put more effort and
study and research into their faith and belief than
you EVER put forth to justify your lack thereof.
> Now anti-theists, well that's a
>different group, you will have to ask them what they think. But
>atheist or anti-thedist, they are individuals, so each will have their
>own notion on the right of things.
>
Seems to me you are an anti-theist. Or maybe you are
just anti-Christian?
>>Show me to be wrong.
>
>You've shown yourself to be wrong with exception of being born
>atheist.
>
Nope. I admit I was born with no knowledge of God.
I also admit that I spent YEARS studying and reflecting
on the issue of God. So where on earth do you get off
judging my belief in Him?
>My Father Christmas passed away
>
He wasn't your father. See, been living a lie
all this time.
Scott
Sterling Crowe
AJ wrote in message <35fb4c3c...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 04:45:41 -0400, "Sterling Crowe"
><weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Beats me.
>>The "rooting" I was referring to is the action an infants takes with its
>>head in looking for its mother's nipple. One of the things an infant is
not
>>ignorant of, IOW.
>
>Well in Australia it means a crude sexual intercourse.OK.
>As in I would like to root you.
Whups! Um. I was totally unaware of that. Sorry.
Obviously an infant is unaware of that.
>>OK, what exactly was I setting up?
>
>Me..it is perhaps in the way you go *sigh*..perhaps that is what irks
>me about you.
>
>
>>>>*sigh* As any among you theists righteous? Are you willing to
demonstrate
>>
>See done it again.
Sorry. I tend to do that sort of thing when I'm feeling world weary. As in
when someone snips everything I say except one sentence and then responds
cryptically to that one.
>>I didn't realize that coming right out and saying that I wanted a
discussion
>>rather than insults was indicative of a desire to be subtle and hide my
>>motives.
>
>Prehaps you are now indicating that you are.
>I first have two rules about debating Atheists,.
>
>1.They know the Bible very well.
How well do you want me to know it? I can recite the Ten Commandments of
Exodus 20 by heart, for instance. I know what John 3:16 says.
I have many half remembered verses floating around in my head and I have
shown some faculty in finding them when I need to using the online bibles at
www.biblestudytools.com .
I am aware of several interpretations of many of the more "problem" verses
and I am willing to go back to the Hebrew and Greek in order to find out the
original intent of a passage.
So, no, I am not capable of reciting the whole thing from cover to cover nor
am I an expert, able to tell you the difference between KJV and Darby at the
drop of a hat, but I am willing to learn.
>2.They are intelligent.
>Do you qualify.?
That is for you to decide.
>>Again, a mispelling.
>>Where have I caused you offense, AJ?
>
>You surely can not be offended by me mistyping your name.
>Are you really that sensitive.?
Not necessarily.
>Answer another question ..
>why do you hate Gods so much?
Um. Can I offer a humble suggestion?
Whenever you are about to ask an atheist about his opinion of a god or gods,
please ask yourself the question, replacing the word "god" or "gods" with
"Vishnu" or "Santa Claus" and see if the question still makes sense to you
before you ask it.
For instance, I do not have hate for any gods for a similar reason to why
you probably do not have hate for gods which are not your own: I don't hate
what I don't believe in.
I am not trying to belittle your beliefs at all, but please understand that
your god is just as fictional to me as other cultures' gods are to you. Can
you hate Ichtome the Spider Man of Amerind myth?
--Sterling Crowe
#1168
heb...@ibm.net
>in
>news:35ee6...@news1.ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>> What rational steps of logic and reason did you
>> follow to convince yourself regarding the truth
>> of whether or not God exists?
>
>Simple for me, there's nothing in my experience worth calling
>God. The religious texts I've looked at all read like fairy
>tales and myths. I don't accept belief in anything without
>examination. The God concept (depending on how it's defined)
>does not stand up to examination.
>
and at some point determined there was nothing in
your experience worth calling God.
You know, this sounds like much the reverse of what
Christians go through. I hope you do not ridicule
Christians for their beliefs, because you seem to
arrive at yours in much the same way.
How did YOU define "God" such that you did not
"find" Him in your experience? Was He a personal
God, an amorphous god?
How did you arrive at your conclusion that your
concept of God was the "correct" concept from
which to arrive at a determination with regard
to the existence of God?
Sounds like you are on pretty shaky ground here.
The statement that you do not accept belief in anything
without examination is patently false. Do you wish to
narrow it a bit?
Which "god concepts" have you examined?
I have seen a number of atheists in this thread claim
EVIDENCE and the EXAMINATION of it, but have yet to
see one of them put forth what that evidence and
examination consisted of.
Unless your description of your personal definition
of god and your not finding any in your experience
qualifies as examination of the god concept or
the existence of God.
>> Most if not all scientists begin with a presupposition
>> do they not?
>
>No, they don't -- they try to rid themselves of presuppositions.
>
WRONG. I will provide one simple example. Scientists involved
in developing drugs to counter disease presuppose that such
a drug can be found.
Heck, why not two? Scientists involved in germ/chemical
warfare presuppose that they can develop newer and deadlier
strains of germ/chemicals. And they also presuppose that
they can find agents to counter these new germs and chemicals.
>But they're stuck with them anyway.
>
OOPS. I should have read on. Guess you caught me in
a little presupposition there. So you admit the existence
and common use of presuppositions in science after
denying that scientists are forced into them. Doh.
>All arguments should be weighed for
>their own sake, based on their own evidences and logical
>consistencies. One tries to leave all "presuppositions" aside and
>consider only how to explain the data in the simplest and most
>elegant way.
>
Please describe how you personally used this "adult"
method to arrive at your conclusions regarding the
existence of God. You didn't? I am not at all surprised.
>> What presupposition(s) did you begin with?
>
>What a question! What do you mean by "presuppositions"? Perhaps
>you mean something I don't? The list is everything one thinks one
>has learned about life over everyday of one's experience. But
>that's not what you're asking, is it? You want to know what frame
>work of ideas could lead one to reject the concept of God....
>right? But why do you call them "presuppositions" ?
>
Well, if one is going to examine the question of the
existence of God one might presuppose that such
a thing was possible, or they might presuppose that
such a thing was impossible. Wouldn't those qualify
as presuppositions?
>The framework of ideas, experiences... Let's start with the
>basics. Often as a child the only proposed answer to my questions
>was "faith." Faith is a cop-out, an admission that the so-called
>"truths" of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason.
>
Faith is not a cop out. It is a reality. Practically everything
that is unseen requires faith. Suppose you are married,
do you follow your wife everywhere to be sure she isn't
cheating on you? Or do you have FAITH in her that she
is being FAITHFUL to you? Is your FAITH in her a cop-out?
The answer to that could be yes or no depending upon
whether you REALLY trusted her or just were forced to
admit that you can't follow her everywhere at all times.
Don't give me this cop-out BS.
>When I read the Bible I felt that both God and Jesus failed to
>live up to their own hype and preaching. God judges man for his
>arrogance and murder -- but God is himself the most arrogant
>killer in the book.
>
Well, sounds to me like you have a few preconceived ideas
here. What experience and knowledge did you use to judge
the actions and motives of God?
>Jesus tells us "to love thy neighbor" and
>"that by their fruits we shall know them." And what are Jesus's
>fruits? He damns those who don't believe him to hell, gets killed,
>and becomes the figure head for a murderous religion.
>
More preconceived (ill-conceived) ideas. Can we assume
that there was murder in the world before Jesus came?
What leads you to believe that would condone such things
in His followers? Don't you recall what He did when His
follower Peter cut off a guy's ear? How can you claim to
have read the Bible with an open mind and maintain that
Jesus taught the justification of murder?
And WHERE did you get this concept of hell you mention?
Did you get it from the scriptures alone or did someone
else teach it to you? Perhaps you had some presuppositions
when you read the bible and so found in it what you wanted
to find.
>> If you were going to set out to prove the existence
>> of God, what would be your FIRST step?
>
>Ask in a sincere prayer if he existed and" ow I could know it.
>
Close, but not quite.
>> Did you follow this when YOU set out to convince
>> yourself one way or another regarding the existence
>> of God?
>
>Yes. There was no answer.
>
Was your prayer at that time an absolutely
serious one, all kidding and sarcasm aside?
What led you to make it? Just do it at someone
else's insistence? Or was it for your own sake?
What was happening in your life that led you to
make it?
If it was absolutely serious, are you still interested?
Walksalone
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> Having stopped their contemplations on the
mystery of life & uttered the following:
>
>AJ wrote in message <35fb4c3c...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 04:45:41 -0400, "Sterling Crowe"
>><weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
Snipped, not germane to following.
>>Answer another question ..
>>why do you hate Gods so much?
>
>
>Um. Can I offer a humble suggestion?
>Whenever you are about to ask an atheist about his opinion of a god or gods,
>please ask yourself the question, replacing the word "god" or "gods" with
>"Vishnu" or "Santa Claus" and see if the question still makes sense to you
>before you ask it.
>For instance, I do not have hate for any gods for a similar reason to why
>you probably do not have hate for gods which are not your own: I don't hate
>what I don't believe in.
>I am not trying to belittle your beliefs at all, but please understand that
>your god is just as fictional to me as other cultures' gods are to you. Can
>you hate Ichtome the Spider Man of Amerind myth?
Uhm, for Sterling Crowe. Near as I recall some teachings of the
elders, Ichtome, Coyote, Raven in Amerindian cosmology was as a
messenger from the creator, say a stand in for the xian Jesus the
Christ. If you would like to natter about that, then a e mail would
be accepted from you. Wish you luck in your upcoming discussion with
AJ. Seems he offends easy, so the discussion may not last long. I'd
be interested in seeing where he wants to go.
>
>
>--Sterling Crowe
>#1168
>
>
>
>
Philosophy: Hard questions that may never be answered.
Religion: Answers that may never be questioned.
The politicaly incorrect:
walksalone at ala net
Pioneer
> So, you at some point defined your concept of "God"
> and at some point determined there was nothing in
> your experience worth calling God.
I'm different from Norman. I let god-believers define their god-concepts
and then examine that concept to see if it describes anything which
appears to exist. Never came up with anything.
> Which "god concepts" have you examined?
Quite a few. I've studied religion in America, Germany, and Switzerland.
> >> Most if not all scientists begin with a presupposition
> >> do they not?
> >
> >No, they don't -- they try to rid themselves of presuppositions.
> >
> WRONG. I will provide one simple example. Scientists involved
> in developing drugs to counter disease presuppose that such
> a drug can be found.
Is English not your first language? How is the existence of a
presupposition a demonstrate that Norman was "wrong" when he said that
scientists TRY to rid themselves of presuppositions?
> >But they're stuck with them anyway.
> >
> OOPS. I should have read on. Guess you caught me in
> a little presupposition there. So you admit the existence
> and common use of presuppositions in science after
> denying that scientists are forced into them. Doh.
English is definitely not your first language - your grasp of it is way
too weak.
> >All arguments should be weighed for
> >their own sake, based on their own evidences and logical
> >consistencies. One tries to leave all "presuppositions" aside and
> >consider only how to explain the data in the simplest and most
> >elegant way.
> >
> Please describe how you personally used this "adult"
> method to arrive at your conclusions regarding the
> existence of God. You didn't? I am not at all surprised.
Why do you arrogantly assume that he didn't?
I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to do exactly what he
describes. People approach me claiming that their god exists. I ask them
for details about this god and for their reasons for thinking that it does
indeed exist. I examine their arguments and information and make the best
judgement possible. Quite simple, really.
<snip>?
> Faith is not a cop out. It is a reality. Practically everything
> that is unseen requires faith.
Really? There is more than one definition of "faith" - the one used by
Paul in the bible, and one used in other circumstances. Which are you
using here?
<snip>
> Was your prayer at that time an absolutely
> serious one, all kidding and sarcasm aside?
As for me, they all were. I was a devout and serious Baptist for several
years, active in my church.
--
Austin Cline: Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
--- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
--- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
Sterling Crowe
heb...@ibm.net wrote in message <35ee8...@news1.ibm.net>...
>In <6slflo$828$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>, "Sterling Crowe"
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>There is nothing in that simple argument which suggests an attitude that
one
>>does not "advance" beyond being a baby. When stated in the way you have
>>stated it, it is not only irrelevant to the statement which was made, it
is
>>insulting in that you are not delineating what you mean by "advanced",
>>suggesting that maturity of any sort is out of reach for atheists.
>>
>Not so. I fully intended the discussion to flow along
>the lines that atheists do indeed advance in some
>areas. The specific questions is, do they advance in
>the area of the existence of God or do they remain
>as babes with regard to that issue.
Okee doke. That's the question.
I'll just snip out the parts where you're not dealing with me, so AJ can
respond to those, OK?
<snip>
>>>Ignorant of God in a conscious sense..everyone is at Birth.
>>
>Ignorant of everything. The point being, does one
>REMAIN ignorant or does one GAIN knowledge, wisdom
>and understanding, i.e. "advance".
>
>
>>*sigh* which statement includes the axiomatic idea that God exists.
>>Something which you haven't demonstrated.
>>
>I am not ATTEMPTING to demonstrate it. I will commit a
>FIRST here and say that according to my experience in
>this thread, atheists can sure be THICK.
You completely ignore the fact that you post to an atheist newsgroup several
statements which can only be taken at face value if one assumes the
existence of a god and become meaningless if one does not and you accuse
atheists of being thick?
Uh huh.
You are attempting to demonstrate the idea that atheists never progress
beyond infancy with regards to God. If God does not exist, then what you are
trying to demonstrate is entirely meaningless. Understand?
>I am not trying to FORCE GOD down your throats. I am
>merely attempting to determine if atheists in general
>have actually ATTEMPTED to verify the existence of
>God or whether they have chosen as a whole to just
>remain as ignorant children in that regard.
No, you are taking this as your assumption and then posting such phrases as
"atheists never research" into god. It certainly is easy to support your
thesis if you are willing to make wild generalizations without any concern
for how much they match reality.
>
>>Do you remain ignorant of Krishna? Everyone is at birth.
>>Wodin? Allah? Shiva? Herne?
>>
>Yes indeed. I am ignorant regarding most of these.
What if one of them is the right one?
>Yet I also do not go about boasting of a lack of
>belief in them either.
>
>So what is your point? What have YOU concluded
>regarding them?
They are so much vaporware. So much the sadder.
>I also rather specifically have not created an AWODIN,
>AALLAH, ASHIVA or AHERNE newsgroup to help me
>support my lack of belief in them.
Look at the name of the newsgroup. It is alt.atheism. Not alt.ayahwehism.
Not alt.ajesusism.
Alt.atheism.
No gods at all.
>
>>You see, your god is really no different for us than any of
>>the other gods believed in by other theists.
>>
>Irrelevant.
Not irrelevant at all. You remain infantile and ignorant of the other gods
out there and yet you consider atheists to be lacking in that they simply do
not exclude your god from the vast list of gods they don't believe in.
>As far as I am concerned your opinions are based upon
>ignorance unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.
And yours are based on fantasy until you can provide evidence to the
contrary.
There, we got that out. Feel better now?
>
>>*sigh* I can't even decide which God you mean.
>>
>Good. That is because I do not MEAN any particular God.
Now this is really getting asinine. Atheists are infantile in re: God. Which
God? I'm not gonna say!
>
>>Which of the thousands of gods out there are you
>>suggesting has it in mind that some people will come
>>to worship it?
>>
>Where did I ever suggest such a thing?
Excuse me. I was responding to AJ in this statement.
>Gee, an atheist creating a straw-man to worship.
>What a novel concept.
Gee, a theist snipping out the part of a post that the person was responding
to and then acting all indignant because that part was never said. How
tiresome
.
Here's what I was responding to:
>>To where? belief in God I suppose.
>>Some do as is the will and plan of God.
So AJ suggested it, Scott. "as is the will and plan of God."
>
>>If it is a Christian/Pauline god, which of the variations?
>>One in which Mosaic Law still applies? One based in faith alone?
>>One based in faith and works? An exotic? You seem to believe
>>in predestination and God willfully affecting the minds of men
>>according to his plan, or have I misinterpreted?
>>
>Have YOU PERSONALLY through your own research
>discounted each and every one of these "gods"?
Yes.
>How?
By examining the arguments for each of them, as presented by the people who
believe in them, and determining that, through flaws in definition, flaws in
practice, flaws in Biblical precepts, flaws in the Bible itself and a
doctrine of inerrancy, and a total lack of objective evidence offered by the
believer, none are extant in reality.
>
>>>>The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>>>>raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>>>>beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>>
>>Which implies what you have not demonstrated:
>>existence of God.
>>
>It does NOT imply the existence of God.
If God does not exist, then there is no advance to be made regarding the
existence of God.
In fact, if self deception can be called such, there is actually a
regression from ignorance to faith in what is not true.
>It is a question of the KNOWLEDGE that an atheist
>has gained with regard to WHETHER OR NOT God
>does exist. If he has no knowledge, can he
>honestly make an informed opinion?
Interesting question. What if there is no knowledge to be gained?
What if the lack of evidence is what causes the person to decide that gods
don't exist and, because there are others out there who have reached similar
conclusions, the person joins a newsgroup in order to escape the cacophony
of theists out there who want his money, his time, his "soul", and his
children's futures? What if that newsgroup, founded to allow atheists to
speak of atheist concerns like school prayer, what to tell your children
when people want to push God on them, and other fiddling little things like
that, is constantly invaded by theists who take the name "alt.atheism" as a
sort of challenge?
Sorry. Little rant there.
>
>>Here is a progression you may wish to consider as well. If you find it
>>insulting at all, do not blame me, as I am merely demonstrating how your
>>logic can be extended:
>>Infancy: ignorance, total lack of awareness of Santa Claus. a-Santa-ist
>>
>No problem here, we all start out like this.
>
>
>>Childhood: Faith. Belief in Santa Claus and desire to please Santa Claus.
>>Santa-ist
>>
>Gained HOW?
For the sake of the analogy, it doesn't matter much. This is an example of
overall transitional phases in growth of maturity which are fairly typical
of people in the United States.
> Did he SEE Santa? Was he TOLD about Santa?
>Did he spend four years in school studying Santa?
>Is this really "faith"?
Are four years in school necessary to instill faith in someone? Can you
point out a passage in any canonized text which suggests so?
The child believes in Santa without actually seeing Santa perform the
miraculous deeds Santa is supposed to perform. The child doesn't question
that a man can cover the entire earth in one night without bursting into
flames. The child's questions are questions of doctrine, not of existence.
>Can you somehow equate all this to a personal experience
>of your own search for God to give it more relevance?
I cried my eyes out as I stood before a pulpit at the age of sixteen and
answered the pastor's three questions "Do you believe that you are a
sinner?" "Do you believe that the Bible is God's word?" "Do you accept
Jesus's forgiveness and salvation?" and answered yes to all three questions.
I had faith in God at that moment. I didn't have any doubts as to the
existence of God.
>
>>Late childhood: Loss of belief in Santa. Mourning for the memory.
>>Seeker.
>>
>Why the LOSS of belief? Did Santa stop coming?
>Did someone TELL him there was no Santa?
>Did his four years of education regarding all things
>Santa related convince him there was no Santa?
Again, irrelevant in the sense of making this analogy. This is a progression
of general development.
Do you demand of someone who states that "secondary sexual characteristics
begin to show between the ages of 12 and 14" that they tell you where the
hair starts to grow first?
The point is that people lose their belief in Santa as a real entity.
They could catch their parents one night. They could begin to doubt because
kids are telling them it's silly. A sitcom could mention it. They might even
pick up a physics text and determine that the outlandish claims about Santa
are just silly.
The point is that they lose belief? Do you disagree that this is a
progression experienced in American children?
>So far all these are truly falling short of making
>any relevant point in your favor.
Apparently. Do you begin to see the point I was actually trying to make?
Anyway, to relate it to me: A doctrinal difference shook my faith first. My
mother was convinced that the reason my half sister was developmentally
disabled was that God was punishing her (my mother) for commiting adultery.
I could not see a God of love and forgiveness punishing a child for the sins
of a parent and I began to argue with her about it. Prayer was to no avail,
as God was not forthcoming to me with an answer, no matter how much I begged
of Him. The still, small voice was silent. It was then that I began to
realize that it had never spoken.
The day I stood before the pulpit, tears streaming down my face, I had done
so to please my mother, not to please God. The rush I felt, which I
attributed to faith at the time, was a rush I have felt many times since on
stage in community theater.
I became disillusioned and began tearing from church to church, looking for
answers. None were forthcoming.
>
>>Adolescence: No more belief in Santa. Perhaps a sadistic streak causes the
>>person to tell children that Santa isn't real. Infidel.
>>
>Rather typical adolscent if you ask me.
>
>Does sound like some atheists I've met though.
>
>None of this is relevant unless somehow he gained more
>knowledge since his first loss of belief as a child. How has
>his lack of belief been re-inforced?
>
>Perhaps he found others who also did not believe in
>Santa and they started an a-santa club to spread the
>word and to offer support to others who were having
>a difficult time living without Santa.
>
>Perhaps they even felt guilty for abandoning Santa
>and needed reassurance that they had done the
>right thing.
>
Very good. I leave it as your exercise to make this child more real to you
as much as you want. I was attempting to show a progression common in
children, a progression of maturity. It is not intended to be a specific
path.
The sole point is that it is a progression which occurs in a different
belief structure. The specific path is irrelevant.
For me, this level of maturity hit in college. I was taking drugs and
philosophy at the same time and considered heckling preachers on the central
mall of the school to be best pastime out there. At the same time, I was
hanging out with Wiccan friends and a couple of Satanists as well. I took
great pleasure in stomping all over feeble mall preacher arguments and
laughing at the guy who believe that Christians were all going to hell
because they got the name of the messiah wrong, but no other details.
In some ways, I have not left this level of maturity. I can be short
tempered with Christians who post Pascal's wager for the nth time on this
newsgroup, for instance. I sometimes show my contempt for what I consider to
be an insulting statement, rather than just letting it roll off of me. And,
of course, I use this newsgroup to debate theists.
>>Maturity: Acceptance that Santa doesn't exist, but with knowledge of what
>>Santa meant to the person.
>>
>No doubt re-inforced by a further gain of knowledge
>regarding the non-existence of Santa. Else what is
>the difference between this mature asantist and
>the child? What the lack of Santa means to him?
>But no more than that?
Knowledge of the ideals that Santa offered. Knowledge that those ideals can
still stand with support other than "Santa will bring you good toys if
you're good or coal if you're bad."
>
>>Benevolent attitude towards those who continue to believe,
>>
>aha. I knew we would sooner or later find the difference
>between an a-santist and an atheist.
It's tough to provide evidence to the contrary. People who feel a "live and
let live" attitude towards theists don't bother interacting with theists any
more than an adult will usually interfere with the Santa fantasy of a young
child. Some days, I am closer to this, in that I will politely discuss
things with a theist, asking what he believes and why, and being careful not
to specifically poke holes in his theory. In this way I learn.
>
>>Does it occur to you that, perhaps, a similar progression is made in the
>>lives of atheists and some of us are watching, hoping that Christians step
>>beyond the "little children" point in their progression?
>>
>Yes. In fact this "progression" is a common claim
>among atheists, it is just that none have actually
>demonstrated how it actually worked out from them
>in actual practice.
Quite frankly, the "atheists are infants when it comes to knowledge about
god" argument is fairly common, as well.
>They have presented it in theory, as have you (what
>you guys read this in a book somewhere?), but no
>one has yet put forth any data from their own
>experience that led them to their lack of belief
>in God. This is my challenge.
For many people, it is a progression taking many years. For others, it is
simply a matter of how they were raised. Getting a total atheist perspective
on this is like herding cats.
However, it is not true that theism is the default position, which is the
whole reason why the fact that infants are atheists by default is brought up
in the first place. To show that the default position is "atheism" and
anything which switches it to "theism" requires a burden of proof. Or faith.
It can be valid to ask in many cases, for those who came to believe, what
shook their belief and caused them to question the position they held.
If you have questions about my own experience, I'll answer them. I am not
going to try and summarize several years of experience for you, though.
>At which stage in the progression did YOU arrive
>at your lack of belief?
At the stage at which I first required evidence for my belief.
> Based upon WHAT?
Based on lack of that evidence.
>Did someone TELL you that God does not exist?
Nope. I'm still not sure that that is the case. I am simply certain that I
have not encountered such a creature and that I do not believe in any of the
presented gods I have encountered. Or any single god. I do not have an
active belief that no gods exist, however.
>Did God stop showing up on a regular basis in your life?
God never was around.
>Did you go to some school and learn there that God
>does not exist?
Nope. Although my interest in science and cosmology has led to the
realization that the Bible is, at best, allegorical in Genesis.
>The analogy you give is perfectly acceptable, but where
>is the practical application?
I can only offer the example from my own life. I hope that I have done so
sufficiently.
> Why should I accept that
>it is an ACCURATE analogy?
Well, in the sentence above, you said that it was acceptable.. Oh, I see
what you mean.
Well, the analogy is an anology in the sense that it is a belief system in
which mature progression involves losing belief, which is what, as you have
noted, some atheists feel may be the case.
OTOH, it is flawed,like any analogy. For instance, Santa is a person
children can touch, with tangible benefits for belief. Gods tend to be a
little less forthcoming. Santa does not require worship as many gods do. And
no one tells someone who is losing their belief in Santa that they are
"backsliding". And Santa doesn't require tithes or rituals that many gods
do.
>
>>Or, perhaps, they grow beyond the need for a god for which
>>they have seen no objective proof.
>>
>That is the SOLE claim? No objective proof?
Isn't that enough?
>What is the measure you used to determine
>"objective proof"?
That which is not totally subjective in nature. "God is real for you if you
have faith" is not evidence, it is merely redundant. Something in nature
which could not occur without the intervention of a divine spirit. Answered
prayers beyond the normal without prayer statistics. Something which does
not involve solely personal revelation.
For if personal revelation is the only way to achieve belief, why bother
chatting at all?
>
>>>>They never perform research with regard to the
>>>>existence of God.
>>
>>Ahem. Engage any of the regulars in alt.atheism (you'll recognize them by
>>their numbers) in conversations about what they have done to look for God
in
>>their lives and you will see that you are sadly mistaken here.
>>
>Well, so far none of them have come forward?
Hi, there. Here I am.
>
>>I, for one, have read the Bible through only once, alas. I have spoken
with
>>theists over twelve years in my life. I have had myself baptized, I have
>>knelt down and prayed, I have begged the empty dark for a sign of
anything.
>>I have sat still and meditated, waiting for the "still, small voice", and
I
>>have participated in the rituals of several churches, a synagogue, and two
>>covens.
>>
>FINALLY! Someone actually lists something they did
>in their search for God. Thank you. I will not go into
>the details of what you have written at this time, but
>I would like to ask you the following:
>
>Of all the things that you have tried, how many of them
>would you accept as "objective proof" from a Christian
>that God did indeed exist? None? Am I being too harsh?
Excuse. Those things whick I describe above are not searches for objective
proof. They are searches for anything to it, including plain ol' personal
revelation.
Since personal revelation has not been forthcoming, I now look for objective
proof. External to the believer. Apologetics might provide some backup.
Observable creation events. A visit from God witnessed by myself and all
people with me. Claims which are borne out by believers would help somewhat
as well, as in the changes which come to a believer. Testimonials rarely
impress me, but behavior often does.
My wife attends a synagogue here in town and I sometimes accompany her. If
anyone has found a loving God, the people at that synagogue have. The funny
thing is that, being Reform Jews, they don't even bother about actively
believing in a God who will affect their lives in any real way, they simply
agree that people are to be loved and God, should he exist, is found in
people.
And they act out what they say! Pretty convincing proof if it wasn't for the
fact that they freely admit that believing in god is necessary at all.
>
>It seems that I see alot of ridicule of Christians by atheists
>for doing these things.
Certainly you do. I see a lot of ridicule of atheists by Christians when
they admit to having done these things. Almost always, they insist that we
were doing it wrong.
>
>>How much have you done to search for Krishna to make
>>sure you haven't picked the wrong one?
>>
>Zilch <g>. I am happy where I am.
And yet, assuming an atheist has, after seeing a total lack of evidence for
any gods in his life, decided he is happy where he is, he is lacking in
maturity beyond that of an infant?
Is it not hypocritical to stop your search at only one god and deride
atheists who stop the search at no gods?
>
>
>>Re: the subject.
>>Posting insulting generalities about atheists to an atheist newsgroup
would
>>not rank high on the list of successful "Strategies for dealing with
>>Atheists."
>>
>Don't most of them have their minds made up already?
Not that I have seen.
Oh, certainly, they are currently of the mind that God doesn't exist, but
that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be willing to change their minds should
something convincing come along.
For instance, should Thor descend the Bifrost bridge before me, demonstrate
his power over the storm, and invite me to Valhalla with him, I would go
right along. Some atheists here would immediately assume a trick up to and
including government conspiracy and extraterrestrial intelligence involved
if necessary to rationalize it away.
However, can you say that, should Thor appear before you in a flashy manner,
you would not assume a trick? Demons or some such? How much evidence would
Thor have to provide before you believed in him?
>
>>Which of the many prophecies is it going to be? Is it going to be one
which
>>hasn't happened yet? Is it going to be one involving Matthew and his
faulty
>>understanding of the messiahnic prophecies (including, of course, the idea
>>that a virgin/young woman would give birth, a prophecy fulfilled right
there
>>in the book of Isaiah)? One of the prophecies made and fulfilled in the
OT,
>>when editors and translators have had plenty of time to cut out the ones
>>which didn't work? The prophecies which are so vague that they can and
have,
>>indeed, have been applied to anything by apocalyptic preachers of every
>>generation since the one Jesus said would not pass away before his return?
>>Or do you have something new?
>>Please tell me that it is the last.
>>
>The last. But you wouldn't believe it because you weren't
>there to see it. And besides, you would just claim it was
>written after the fact, right?
Who knows. You haven't shown it.
Try it and see.
>See AJ, I told you they already had all the stock arguments
>against prophecy. But let's see if my answer piqued his
>interest. Something new is always a good way to gain interest.
Well, of course. I only wanted to avoid wasting time because we have seen
many of the arguments time and again, so I was getting the stock ones out of
the way.
>And yes Sterling, prophecies do get abused, badly.
Don't have to tell me. When is Nostradomus getting canonized?
>
>>>>They never search for truth with regard to the
>>>>existence of God.
>>
>>Or, perhaps, they have already arrived at it and are waiting for you to
>>catch up?
>>
>My simple question is, how? How did they arrive
>at their conclusions?
Different methods. How do each and every believer arrive at faith?
>
>>>Agreed to a point.But most are looking for reasons to deny that god
>>>exists..they stop when they think they have found one..and give
>>>themselves a pat on the back.which is strange.
>>
>>*sigh* I, for one, have spent the better part of my life looking for
>>something to match any of the multitudinous definitions for "god" I have
>>heard. Idols and the sun notwithstanding, I have found nothing.
>>When an atheist pokes a hole in one of your arguments, it is not because
he
>>is looking for "reasons to deny god exists", it is because he is testing
the
>>evidence you offer for belief. The fact that a hole opens right up is not
a
>>fault of the atheist, it is a fault of the argument and, perhaps, a fault
of
>>your god, should it exist, for not providing you with an argument to
>>overcome any possible objection.
>>If the evidence you present is faulty for whatever reason, be it that it
is
>>a "logical" argument based on logical fallicies, an appeal to faulty
>>science, or an emotional appeal based on false assumptions about the
>>motivations of the person to whom you are appealing, then it is not
>>evidence. Don't blame the atheist for your failings.
>>
>Again, is the "test" a valid and reasonable one?
I don't know. What do you offer as an alternative?
>That goes back to my question above. In your own search
>for God, how many of the things that you tried were "logical"?
Quite a few. Logical arguments and discussions. Logical progressions.
Examination of observable fact.
>How many of the things you tried were "emotional".
Quite a few of these as well, since many theists will tell you that this
sort of thing is the only thing which will work.
>Do atheists have a double-standard?
What sort of a double-standard?
>Why would God offer irrefutable proof that he exists?
Depends. Which God?
>Is that even possible?
Depends on if the God in existence is omnipotent or not.
> What do you think would qualify
>as irrefutable?
Depends again. A tattoo in clear English, marked "Property of God" which
exists on every single human being would be pretty convincing.
The Rapture would be a good one.
> Would it be irrefutable to all?
Probably not. I am not omniscient, however, so I do not know if there exists
one which would be.
>If your father took a bullet meant for you and died as
>a result, would that offer "irrefutable proof" that he
>loved you?
How is this related?
> Wouldn't that determination depend upon
>your own heart and mind?
Well, yes. After all, if Daddy took that bullet because I had just punched
him in the jaw and his head snapped back and intercepted it, I would say
that love wasn't really an issue for him.
However, since I define love as "the condition in which another person's
welfare is essential for your own", I would say that a voluntary act in that
regard would be pretty good evidence.
>
>>Thomas had his doubts swept clean by evidence he considered valid and
>>substantial. He did not simply say "OK, I believe you" and do you think he
>>would have ceased his doubting had he discovered that the wounds were
merely
>>stage makeup and the man before him was not Jesus? Why do you deny
atheists
>>this sort of evidence? Why do you accuse us of being infantile for wanting
>>something substantial?
>>
>You see. You have just PROVEN my argument. What Thomas
>found valid and substantial is not good enough for everyone.
So?
>Even though, if the testimony is to be believed, Thomas saw
>and handled the resurrected Lord, not all were willing to
>accept HIS word for it.
Right. Thomas had his doubts put to rest on Thomas's terms. What makes him
so special that other nonbelievers cannot receive the same thing for
themselves when they doubt? That's all I'm asking for. Evidence which would
put aside my doubts before I will believe. Not demands that I set aside my
doubts unanswered and simply believe.
> Does it strike you as odd that Jesus
>only appeared after His resurrection to those that had believed
>in Him BEFORE he was crucified?
Um. Do you really want me to answer this?
>
>>>>They never arrive at any conclusion with regard to
>>>>the existence of God.
>>
>>This is ironic, to say the least. You have concluded that you know the
>>motives of an entire group of people with one binding feature "lack of
>>belief in god or gods" and you have done so before you looked at the
>>evidence.
>>
>Only the statement above belongs to me. Is it wrong?
>What is incorrect about it?
Some do indeed arrive at a conclusion. They are known as strong atheists.
The conclusion may not be satisfactory to you, but it is a conclusion.
But you cut out the statement which I was also responding to in this. AJ
said that atheists arrive at conclusions without looking at the evidence. A
conclusion he reached without discussion with atheists.
>
>>>>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>>>>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>>
>>Are you interested in the truth?
>>
>Yes.
Good.
>
>But I do not think that you actually provided any
>contradictory evidence to counter the following
>three claims regarding atheists:
>
>They never perform research with regard to the
>existence of God.
What do you regard as "research" then? From where I sit, from having done
such searching for most of my life, this statement is false when applied to
me and, because of its total nature in regarding what *all* atheists *never*
do, the statement falls apart. You have not supported it, sir, certainly not
in application to this atheist.
>They never search for truth with regard to the
>existence of God.
See above.
>They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>the existence of God.
Look for Stix in this newsgroup. Ask him if he has come to a conclusion
about the existence of God.
>
>Before you, not one single atheist has provided evidence
>to contradict these three statements, and you only
>provided a few things that you tried in response to
>one of the points.
Then establish for me the difference between "research" and "search for
truth". To me, they are redundant.
>Does that mean they are generally valid?
No. It means that you have made absolute statements and still expect them to
stand. If you wish to back off and say "there are atheists who never
research" then I will accept a statement such as that.
But they are not generally valid because they are invalid if not absolute,
from their very language.
>
>Regards,
>
>Scott
Cheers,
Sterling Crowe
Norman Doering
news:35eec...@news1.ibm.net
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
> In <6sluvl$hcm$1...@wildfire.prairienet.org>,
> ttdo...@prairienet.org (Norman Doering) writes:
>> in
>> news:35ee6...@news1.ibm.net
>> heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>>
>>> What rational steps of logic and reason did you
>>> follow to convince yourself regarding the truth
>>> of whether or not God exists?
>>
>> Simple for me, there's nothing in my experience worth calling
>> God. The religious texts I've looked at all read like fairy
>> tales and myths. I don't accept belief in anything without
>> examination. The God concept (depending on how it's defined)
>> does not stand up to examination.
>
No. That's not quite what I said. I never defined "God," other
people defined "God" for me. The problem is they define him in
a most confusing variety of ways. Most of them described something
which didn't appear to exist. Some people claim they believe
there must be some creative force out there and claim to call that
God -- well yes, that appears to exist, there is obviously a
creative force... in fact there are several creative forces out
there; information entropy, quantum randomness and vacuum
fluctuations to name a few. I don't think they qualify as "God"
because that's a bit less than your average Bible believer wants
to refer to. The more mysterious creative forces may be no
different than the ones we know.
When I talk about defining God I'm talking about hearing lots of
definitions of the term from different people. Some people use the
term god in an entirely metaphoric way, Some, like Einstein, seem
to have a concept of a god who started the universe in some
mechanistic fashion and then left the picture -- I found that
concept of god quite irrelevant, there's no way you could ever
know one way or the other, so who cares. That concept of god just
covers of our ignorance of how the universe got started.
So, I have arrived at a context and definition for talking about
God -- when I use the term I mean to refer to the God of
traditional Jewish/Christian/Islamic beliefs, as described in the
Old Testament first, then in a variety of other works, as I
understand them, for that is the culture I'm from. I reject
Buddhism with a separate terminology.
> ...and at some point determined there was nothing in your
> experience worth calling God.
Yes.
> You know, this sounds like much the reverse of what
> Christians go through.
> I hope you do not ridicule Christians for their beliefs, because
> you seem to arrive at yours in much the same way.
>
> How did YOU define "God" such that you did not
> "find" Him in your experience?
so I wouldn't be misunderstood. We are talking about the God of
the Bible here, no other.
> Was He a personal God, an amorphous god?
> How did you arrive at your conclusion that your
> concept of God was the "correct" concept from
> to the existence of God?
I read the Bible. I talked to believers.
> Sounds like you are on pretty shaky ground here.
definitions. We're all on shaky ground here.
> The statement that you do not accept belief in anything
> without examination is patently false.
free time to consider the evidence. Of, course simetimes you have
to make choices without sufficient information. When I claim to
believe something it is because I've examined the available
evidence. You're simply full of shit there.
> Do you wish to narrow it a bit?
> Which "god concepts" have you examined?
to us. -- As you've have come... so what's your story?
> I have seen a number of atheists in this thread claim
> EVIDENCE and the EXAMINATION of it, but have yet to
> see one of them put forth what that evidence and
> examination consisted of.
What have you got?
> Unless your description of your personal definition
> of god and your not finding any in your experience
> qualifies as examination of the god concept or
You have an interesting way of failing to get the point.
Okay, the line in the sand I've drawn for talking about God is
this: To qualify as a definition of God you should be talking
about an entity with these qualities "will," "intention,"
"foresight," and "purpose" who created the universe, or at least
created man.
Mindless creative forces don't qualify.
That's my definition. That's all there is to it.
To me the evidence says we were created by mindless forces,
natural selection, the forces identified by physics etc.
>>> Most if not all scientists begin with a presupposition
>>> do they not?
>>
>> No, they don't -- they try to rid themselves of presuppositions.
>>
> WRONG. I will provide one simple example. Scientists involved
> in developing drugs to counter disease presuppose that such a
> drug can be found.
theories.
> Heck, why not two? Scientists involved in germ/chemical warfare
> agents to counter these new germs and chemicals.
>> But they're stuck with them anyway.
>
> OOPS. I should have read on. Guess you caught me in
> a little presupposition there. So you admit the existence
> and common use of presuppositions in science after
> denying that scientists are forced into them. Doh.
You're mis-reading me. Let me guess, I don't mean to insult you
here - later yes - but not here, is English not your first
language? You've mis-read me badly. This will make communication
difficult.
>> All arguments should be weighed for their own sake, based on
>> their own evidences and logical consistencies. One tries to
>> leave all "presuppositions" aside and consider only how to
>> explain the data in the simplest and most elegant way.
>
> Please describe how you personally used this "adult"
> method to arrive at your conclusions regarding the
> existence of God. You didn't? I am not at all surprised.
this presupposition. Frankly, what you say means you should be
surprised -- because I did it - not as an adult, as an adolesent
and then as an adult only slightly. If you can't believe that
then you've been brainwashed by your religion and do not see in
people what is really there.
You really need to tame that tendency to jump to conclusions
and listen to people first.
I look at the world and I ask is this kind of world that any
entity with a mind, intention and foresight would make?
We have evidence for evolution and a theory of common descent.
Natural selection plus information entropy turns out to be a
mindless creative force. When I look at the larger universe
as modern astronomy describes it I see a whole universe shaped
by a mathematics of chaos, ruled by nothing but mindless forces.
There is no God I can see -- there are only these mindless forces
totally lacking in the qualities the Bible ascribes to God. So,
the most elegant and simplest answer according to the data is that
it is these mindless forces that govern the cosmos.
>>> What presupposition(s) did you begin with?
>>
>> What a question! What do you mean by "presuppositions"?
>> Perhaps you mean something I don't? The list is everything
>> one thinks one has learned about life over everyday of
>> one's experience. But that's not what you're asking, is it?
>> You want to know what frame work of ideas could lead one to
>> "presuppositions" ?
>
> Well, if one is going to examine the question of the
> existence of God one might presuppose that such
> a thing was possible, or they might presuppose that
> such a thing was impossible. Wouldn't those qualify
> as presuppositions?
When I was younger it wasn't me who came up with the idea to pray.
It's something my father did and advised me to do -- my first
presupposition was nothing more than taking my father's word for
things. Once one tries it, one comes to other conclusions and
moves on.
>> The framework of ideas, experiences... Let's start with the
>> basics. Often as a child the only proposed answer to my
>> questions was "faith." Faith is a cop-out, an admission that
>> the so-called "truths" of religion are unknowable through
>> evidence and reason.
>
> everything that is unseen requires faith.
You can feel it, measure its strength. You din't need faith to
believe in electromagnetism, it can be empirically measured.
> Suppose you are married, do you follow your wife everywhere to
> be sure she isn't cheating on you? Or do you have FAITH in her
> that she is being FAITHFUL to you? Is your FAITH in her a
> cop-out?
do cheat -- should you have faith in your wife if she is? If you
have evidence your wife is cheating on you then you are a fool to
have faith in her. Your example goes both ways -- you've presummed
she doesn't cheat -- presumptions are your problem not mine.
But I'm not married and my last girlfriend and I had an open
relationship. I didn't require her to be sexually faithful.
She was for awhile any way, but I knew things had changed
long before she told me because of how our way of relating
changed ... that's information on reading people I would take
into a marriage. It's not all faith and if I saw the same signs in
my wife I would lose faith in her.
> The answer to that could be yes or no depending upon whether you
> REALLY trusted her or just were forced to admit that you can't
> follow her everywhere at all times.
one learns from experience by having sexual relations before
marriage.
> Don't give me this cop-out BS.
you have no reason to have faith in.
>> When I read the Bible I felt that both God and Jesus failed to
>> live up to their own hype and preaching. God judges man for his
>> arrogance and murder -- but God is himself the most arrogant
>> killer in the book.
>
> Well, sounds to me like you have a few preconceived ideas
> here. What experience and knowledge did you use to judge
> the actions and motives of God?
him the same I'd judge any character in a story - according to my
own ethical precepts. The fact that he kills people in the Bible
is enough. He kills the first born of Eygpt, Destroys two whole
cities with fire... Moses kills the calf worshippers... the list
goes on and on.
>> Jesus tells us "to love thy neighbor" and
>> "that by their fruits we shall know them." And what are Jesus's
>> fruits? He damns those who don't believe him to hell, gets
>> killed, and becomes the figure head for a murderous religion.
>
> More preconceived (ill-conceived) ideas. Can we assume
> that there was murder in the world before Jesus came?
> What leads you to believe that would condone such things
> in His followers?
> Don't you recall what He did when His follower Peter cut off a
> guy's ear?
> How can you claim to have read the Bible with an open mind
> and maintain that Jesus taught the justification of murder?
fruits you shall know them and the fact is he didn't change
much.
> And WHERE did you get this concept of hell you mention?
From the Bible.
> Did you get it from the scriptures alone or did someone
> else teach it to you?
> Perhaps you had some presuppositions when you read the bible
> and so found in it what you wanted to find.
>>> If you were going to set out to prove the existence of God,
>>> what would be your FIRST step?
>>
>> know it.
>
> Close, but not quite.
>>> Did you follow this when YOU set out to convince
>>> yourself one way or another regarding the existence
>>> of God?
>>
>> Yes. There was no answer.
>
> serious one, all kidding and sarcasm aside?
> What led you to make it?
To this day I can't 100% rule out the possibility of some kind
of "God" no more than you can be 100% sure your wife isn't
cheating. All I can be sure of is that I have no reason to make
such an outrageous assumption and that those who claim belief in
him seem delusional and ignorant to me.
> Just do it at someone else's insistence?
for more than a year when I was a child of about 6 and 7. The only
thing I knew was that I didn't know anything and had no other
access to an aswer to the important question.
However, I did it because others claimed it worked for them.
I was just different somehow.
> Or was it for your own sake?
> What was happening in your life that led you to make it?
without help. A fear of damnation as described in the Bible.
I was alone in my disbelief, going against the grain of opinion
because I lacked what others claimed to have in my little
community; belief in God. I felt very out of place until I made
contact with other atheists.
> If it was absolutely serious, are you still interested?
who claim to believe in him. I've talked to quite a large sampling
of believers and have generally found them wanting in logic and
method.
But I'm willing to hear what you might have to say....
For now.
Sterling Crowe
AJ wrote in message <35fc4f91...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 04:51:26 -0400, "Sterling Crowe"
><weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Does it make more sense, now?
>>
>>--Sterling Crowe
>
>Yes thanks Sterling.
>911 operator?
>AJ
>
Hmmm... 911 I know is an American phenomenon, don't know if you have it
"Down Under". It is a universal distress telephone number enacted to put
people in touch with emergency services in time of crises.
IOW, your tragedy is my job.
--Sterling Crowe
Sterling Crowe
AJ wrote in message <35ef611b...@news.wantree.com.au>...
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 03:12:04 -0400, "Sterling Crowe"
><weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ok Sterling ..
>
>>>>>>Are you arguing that atheists have never advanced beyond
>>>>>>being a baby?
>>>>>
>>Non sequitor. The person was contradicting the claim that "no one is born
an
>>atheist" and supporting the argument by indicating the definition of
>>"atheist".
>>There is nothing in that simple argument which suggests an attitude that
one
>>does not "advance" beyond being a baby. When stated in the way you have
>>stated it, it is not only irrelevant to the statement which was made, it
is
>>insulting in that you are not delineating what you mean by "advanced",
>>suggesting that maturity of any sort is out of reach for atheists.
>
Dr. Ron? Who is that?
>
>>>Dr Ron Rhodes.
>>>He is not listening ..he is in America.
>>>I may attempt an answer ..although I do not agree with his approaches
>>>to Atheists.
>>
>>
>>What is it you don't agree with?
>
>His approach that we need to convince Atheists.
Well, I guess I can agree with you on this :)
>>>>The following is just as true: Everyone is born in ignorance.
>>>
>>>Ignorance of God? In a conscious sense yes.
>>
>>
>>Ignorance of everything except, perhaps, the sound of mother's voice,
>>rooting, and sucking.
>
>Ok ..having explained the meaning of "rooting"
>it is quite different in Australia.
Sorry about the confusion. Didn't know I was being bawdy.
>>>>Can one then conclude that all atheists are ignorant?
>>>
>>>Ignorant of God in a conscious sense..everyone is at Birth.
>
>>which statement includes the axiomatic idea that God exists.
>
>Everytime the word God is written..does this mean we are confessing he
>exists? better not to write the word, meaningless comment IMHO.
Oh, no. The statement that someone can be ignorant of God as a being, rather
than as a mythological construct, is assumption that God exists.
The idea that an atheist, lacking a belief in the supposed reality of God,
is somehow immature is based on the assumption that there is a reality there
which is not seen. This is what the original poster was supposed to be
supporting and assertions like this are merely assertions of what is to be
proven, not support for the prospect.
>>Something which you haven't demonstrated.
>>Do you remain ignorant of Krishna? Everyone is at birth. Wodin? Allah?
>>Shiva? Herne?
>>You see, your god is really no different for us than any of the other gods
>>believed in by other theists.
>
>You surely have not demonstrated that in your statement.
In what way? For the atheist, for whom existence of your god is not a
belief, your god is in the same position as the rest of the gods which you
do not believe in are for you.
You believe in god x. All other gods, for you are not believed in and are,
from your point of view, nonexistant.
I simply also do not believe in god x, so I regard your god as nonexistant,
just as you regard all the other gods.
Have I improperly characterized your attitude towards the gods of other
cultures? If so, I apologize. If not, I hope I have made myself clearer.
>>>>The question is, once born, does one "advance."
>>>
>>>To where? belief in God I suppose.
>>>Some do as is the will and plan of God.
>>
>>
>> I can't even decide which God you mean.
>
>How can you be expected to ..I thought God did not exist.
Analogy: You are talking about of the dwarves who accompany Bilbo on his
quest in The Hobbit. It is not necessary for me to believe in the real
existence of Bili and Fili and the rest to wonder which you are talking
about. And it is not necessary for me to believe in the existence of the
particular dwarf you are referring to to know which one you are discussing.
>Be careful to say "mythical" before God.
Why? That would be redundant :)
>You will then be a better Atheist.
I don't have a desire to be a better atheist. I have a desire to increase my
understanding of reality.
>There is only one God as far as I am concerned.
>This is Aus. Religion.Christian.
Certainly, but that does not establish which version of the Christian God
you are referring to, unless Australians have only one denomonation to look
to.
>>Which of the thousands of
>>gods out there are you suggesting has it in mind that some people will
come
>>to worship it? If it is a Christian/Pauline god, which of the variations?
>>One in which Mosaic Law still applies? One based in faith alone? One based
>>in faith and works? An exotic? You seem to believe in predestination and
God
>>willfully affecting the minds of men according to his plan, or have I
>>misinterpreted?
>
> Question questions questions.
>I am an Orthodox Protestant Christian OK...
Let me see if I understand some of the doctrines of your beliefs. Feel free
to correct me where I am wrong:
The Bible is the Word of God.
Jesus is the son of God and is part of the triune nature of God.
All people are sinners, they cannot be otherwise unless the Holy Spirit is
in control of their lives.
Salvation is gained, not by following the Law of the OT, but by faith in
Jesus Christ.
God, before the foundations of the world were laid, knew which of his people
would be gaining salvation and which would not.
Faith is a gift granted by God and is not something people can acquire on
their own.
If one does not achieve salvation, one is subjected to the second death,
which is Hell and eternal torment.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and loves his creation.
Am I on the right track here?
>>>>The argument that everyone is born as an atheist
>>>>raises the question of whether atheists never advance
>>>>beyond infancy with regard to the existence of God.
>>
>>
>>Which implies what you have not demonstrated: existence of God.
>Who Dr Ron Rhodes?
Whomever wrote the above.
>>Here is a progression you may wish to consider as well. If you find it
>>insulting at all, do not blame me, as I am merely demonstrating how your
>>logic can be extended:
>>Infancy: ignorance, total lack of awareness of Santa Claus. a-Santa-ist
>>Childhood: Faith. Belief in Santa Claus and desire to please Santa Claus.
>>Santa-ist
>>Late childhood: Loss of belief in Santa. Mourning for the memory. Seeker.
>>Adolescence: No more belief in Santa. Perhaps a sadistic streak causes the
>>person to tell children that Santa isn't real. Infidel.
>>Maturity: Acceptance that Santa doesn't exist, but with knowledge of what
>>Santa meant to the person. Benevolent attitude towards those who continue
to
>>believe, and an attempt to continue to represent the ideals that the myth
>>represented. Freethinking a-Santa-ist.
>>
>>Does it occur to you that, perhaps, a similar progression is made in the
>>lives of atheists and some of us are watching, hoping that Christians step
>>beyond the "little children" point in their progression?
>
>I hope Ron will answer you.
Someone did :)
>>>It is a poor argument IMHO.
>>>Yours is developing better.
>>>
>>>>The obvious rhetorical response is, no. Atheists
>>>>remain infants in this aspect of their knowledge.
>>
>>
>>Or, perhaps, they grow beyond the need for a god for which they have seen
no
>>objective proof.
>>
>You have this lot a bit mixed up Sterling.
>I think you are answered Scotts' question.
I am having trouble understanding you here. Could you please elaborate?
<snip>
>>Ahem. Engage any of the regulars in alt.atheism (you'll recognize them by
>>their numbers) in conversations about what they have done to look for God
in
>>their lives and you will see that you are sadly mistaken here.
>
>We would be not wasting my time.
>I am only interested in Christianity.
>This will narrow the field somewhat.
Then please have the courtesy to acknowledge that you were repeating a
stereotype which has little relation to atheists.
Also, I think you will find that, since this is an English speaking
newsgroup, most of the ex-theists here are ex-theists of some Christian
Church.
>>I, for one, have read the Bible through only once, alas.
>
>You have no chance of understanding it unless you believe.
>It is spiritually discerned.Christianity is a belief system.
>A once through read is absolutely without use or purpose.
Well, you certainly put me in my place :)
Lacking the time to read the book repeatedly, I generally adress portions of
it when they are brought to my attention. I do not feel it is neccessary for
me to reread all of the "begats" or the tests for leprosy, for instance.
>>I have spoken with
>>theists over twelve years in my life.
>>I have had myself baptized, I have
>>knelt down and prayed, I have begged the empty dark for a sign of
anything.
>>I have sat still and meditated, waiting for the "still, small voice", and
I
>>have participated in the rituals of several churches, a synagogue, and two
>>covens.
>
>You are one heck of a mixed up guy.
Heh.
>What orthodox churches have you been to?
Well, from the outside, every church I have been to calls their doctrines
Orthodox. I have attended services in the Roman Catholic Church, Baptist
churches, Lutheran, Evangelical, and smatterings of small "interfaith"
churches. I have not attended any Amish services nor have I been to a Morman
temple or a Quaker meeting.
>>How much have you done to search for Krishna to make sure you haven't
picked
>>the wrong one?
>
>Got it wrong Sterling..he picked me..
Apologies. Will you accept that atheists have not had that boon granted
them?
>>>Agreed Scott. I think you could help here..from a prophesy POV.
>>>However I doubt if any are seriously interested or have enough
>>>motivation with respect to attention span.
>>
>>
>>Re: the subject.
>>Posting insulting generalities about atheists to an atheist newsgroup
would
>>not rank high on the list of successful "Strategies for dealing with
>>Atheists."
>
>Agreed but it is the truth and it may set someone free.
It may be true that you doubted it, but it is not true that your doubt is
justified.
Of course, I am sure you feel the sentence above can be applied to me :)
>But I doubt it, Look at your adhoc attempts to find God..the ones you
>class as research.
None of my attempts at research are "after the fact". I have looked at my
actions (I wrote them, after all) and I do not see them as indicative of a
lack of interest or a short attention span. What would you class as
"research"?
>>>Give them an example.
>>>But let them ask first.
>>
>>
>>Which of the many prophecies is it going to be? Is it going to be one
which
>>hasn't happened yet? Is it going to be one involving Matthew and his
faulty
>>understanding of the messiahnic prophecies (including, of course, the idea
>>that a virgin/young woman would give birth, a prophecy fulfilled right
there
>>in the book of Isaiah)? One of the prophecies made and fulfilled in the
OT,
>>when editors and translators have had plenty of time to cut out the ones
>>which didn't work? The prophecies which are so vague that they can and
have,
>>indeed, have been applied to anything by apocalyptic preachers of every
>>generation since the one Jesus said would not pass away before his return?
>>Or do you have something new?
>>Please tell me that it is the last.
>
>That is up to Scott.
>I will not second guess him.
>Best if you do some research on the relief of Damascus by General
>Allenby.I am not saying you will find it convincing..however somedody
>recognised that it would happen quite a few years before it did. but I
>do not really care . It is not part of any proof I need.
Is there a book I should go for this? Or, better yet, a web site you would
like to point me to?
>>>>They never search for truth with regard to the
>>>>existence of God.
>>
>>
>>Or, perhaps, they have already arrived at it and are waiting for you to
>>catch up?
>Doubt it ..without faith it will not happen.
A statement indicative of your own faith, of course.
However, I believe it was Nietschze who stated that "A stroll through an
asylum will show that faith means nothing."
>>>Agreed to a point.But most are looking for reasons to deny that god
>>>exists..they stop when they think they have found one..and give
>>>themselves a pat on the back.which is strange.
>>
>> I, for one, have spent the better part of my life looking for
>>something to match any of the multitudinous definitions for "god" I have
>>heard. Idols and the sun notwithstanding, I have found nothing.
>
>Perhaps you are not chosen .
Perhaps. Is it your belief that I will be punished eternally for not having
been?
>>When an atheist pokes a hole in one of your arguments, it is not because
he
>>is looking for "reasons to deny god exists", it is because he is testing
the
>>evidence you offer for belief.
>
>There is none. It is a belief system not a logic system.
>Revelation comes from the Bible to a believer.
Then how is belief gained?
>> The fact that a hole opens right up is not a
>>fault of the atheist, it is a fault of the argument and, perhaps, a fault
of
>>your god, should it exist, for not providing you with an argument to
>>overcome any possible objection.
>
>Don't need one.Why should I want to convince you of anything.
>God will do the convincing if you are in his plan.
If it happens, then I will need no argument to agree with you. If it does
not, then no argument will convince me. Is this what you are saying?
>>If the evidence you present is faulty for whatever reason, be it that it
is
>>a "logical" argument based on logical fallicies, an appeal to faulty
>>science, or an emotional appeal based on false assumptions about the
>>motivations of the person to whom you are appealing, then it is not
>>evidence. Don't blame the atheist for your failings.
>
>I am not providing you with any evidence. I will defend the
>infallibility of the Bible to the best of my ability.
Hmmm... Quick question: Are the first two chapters of Genesis literal or
allegorical?
>>As far as the "pat on the back" goes, perhaps there are those who do so. I
>>pat myself on the back for educating someone when I can and for learning
>>something from them whenever I can.
>
>Well learn this ..there is only one God..he chooses us in eternity
>past. If you are chisen you will get to know about it.
And if not? Is there punishment in my future?
>>>As a Christian should
>>>I be looking for reasons why God does not exist ?
>>
>>Certainly. Are you not exhorted in your Bible to test your faith when you
>>can?
>
>No. What scripture and verse.
Apologies. I spoke wrongly, though not by intention.
God tests faith repeatedly in the Bible, but it is not given to the believer
by the Bible (as far as I was able to find) to test his own faith. Sorry.
>>>.Don't think so.. it
>>>is a belief system...I am a believer not a doubting Thomas..
>>
>>
>>Thomas had his doubts swept clean by evidence he considered valid and
>>substantial.
>
>So do christians when they start to understand the Bible.
Hold on. This is starting to seem circular...
>>He did not simply say "OK, I believe you" and do you think he
>>would have ceased his doubting had he discovered that the wounds were
merely
>>stage makeup and the man before him was not Jesus? Why do you deny
atheists
>>this sort of evidence? Why do you accuse us of being infantile for wanting
>>something substantial?
>
>I don't think I did.
>Because you do not understand the Bible. You only will if you are
>chosen.
Well, I must say that I find it refreshing to find someone who agrees with
me that passages of the Bible not only imply predestination, they demand it.
>>>>They never arrive at any conlusion with regard to
>>>>the existence of God.
>>>
>>>They do.. they conclude that God does not exist.. before they look at
>>>the evidence.
>>
>>
>>This is ironic, to say the least. You have concluded that you know the
>>motives of an entire group of people with one binding feature "lack of
>>belief in god or gods" and you have done so before you looked at the
>>evidence.
>
>I am talking about the one true God.
>I believe you have not looked at the evidence properly either.
>You see the point is you are not equiped to ..until you are filled
>with the holy spirit.This will only happen if you believe.
>A circular argument granted..but i did not make the rules.
Then you do not fault atheists for their unbelief?
>>>>They remain in the same state the were born, as
>>>>ignorant babies, at least on this matter.
>>>
>>>True.
>>
>>
>>Are you interested in the truth?
>I was chosen Sterling.
>I was given the truth.
Well, for your sake, I hope so.
Especially if damnation is in the future for those who are not chosen.
For my sake, I can only say that if you are correct, then I hope one day to
believe as you do.
Until then (and, I think you may agree), I have no choice but to be as I am.
>AJ
--Sterling Crowe
I do not know if we have merely established that further discussion is
futile or not. If so, then I wish you happy returns in your life.
rl...@my-dejanews.com
> Now quoting scripture to Atheists is not fruitful..They have not the
> Holy spirit indwelling to be able to comprehend.
Why should that be needed? The Bible is a book. It either says something,
or it does not.
> This comes later.IMHO.. from the scriptures..we are made wise by
> understanding the scriptures..Word of God..that is all I am saying.
> First receive the Kingdom of God ..as a child in understanding..then
> all will be added unto you.
Of course, once people decide to believe something, it is natural that they
will "understand" it.
Rob Lent
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
AJ
<weezboH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Answer another question ..
>>why do you hate Gods so much?
>
>
>Um. Can I offer a humble suggestion?
>Whenever you are about to ask an atheist about his opinion of a god or gods,
>please ask yourself the question, replacing the word "god" or "gods" with
>"Vishnu" or "Santa Claus" and see if the question still makes sense to you
>before you ask it.
>For instance, I do not have hate for any gods for a similar reason to why
>you probably do not have hate for gods which are not your own: I don't hate
>what I don't believe in.
>I am not trying to belittle your beliefs at all, but please understand that
>your god is just as fictional to me as other cultures' gods are to you. Can
>you hate Ichtome the Spider Man of Amerind myth?
Thats OK Sterling. But some Atheists would start to tell me
all about why they hated God.
For somebody they thought did not exist that would be crazy.
I do not like talking to crazies.
AJ