And more God stuff.....

63 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave

unread,
May 21, 2002, 3:44:43 PM5/21/02
to
Hello,

In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the Atheist
to prove that God does not exist.

So let me ask the Theists:-

Which God is it you believe in ?

The Christian God, Muslim God or Jewish God ?

Or is it one of the Hindu, Greek, Roman or Egyptian Gods...?

Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
the evidence that shows the others do not exist.


Richard Caley

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:01:00 PM5/21/02
to
In article <srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Dave (d) writes:

d> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the Atheist
d> to prove that God does not exist.

No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they have
to provide a rational proof no god exists.

Many atheists are quite sane and sensible and happy knowing that their
atheism is based on non rational factors such as feeling that the idea
of god is silly/ugly/insulting/whatver.

d> Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
d> the evidence that shows the others do not exist.

There is no god but KaTe and Dave ws her prophet.

If you need proof you are not playing it loud enough.

--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<

NUNIA

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:20:35 PM5/21/02
to
people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the proof.
and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific proof.

watcher

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:24:18 PM5/21/02
to
"NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in message
news:acea6l$od1$1...@ins22.netins.net...

> people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the proof.
> and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific proof.
>
can you provide proof for Gods non existance?


NUNIA

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:26:31 PM5/21/02
to
absolutly.


John Hattan

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:27:40 PM5/21/02
to
"watcher" <no...@none.com> wrote:

Can you provide proof that you don't owe me a thousand dollars?

---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com

Jez

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:39:44 PM5/21/02
to
Well. If God does exist he's a right bastard....
expecting us to live on this shitty little planet............
And look at the way he treats his 'worshipers', it's not
as if He sends them a postcard for their trouble......
Miserable git...........

:)

--
Ho hum
Jez
(Remove NOtSPAM to reply)


welsh witch

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:42:02 PM5/21/02
to


"Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote in message
news:srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...

******************************************
You didn't ask about the Ritual Magicians or Pagans I notice;-)

If so I would have said that we all make our own gods. Some of us are
aware of what we're doing and some of us are not.

A god is made or worshiped by us as a means of "pulling power" through
from either our subconcious or a group conciousness.
For example Roman Catholocism has the extremely powerful icon of the
Blessed Virgin Mary. It is extremely powerful because it has been the
object of intense emotional attention for hundreds of years. Its
unbelievable what can be achieved by the appeal to this icon of the
faith.
So all gods are the same in essence ie a focus some more colourful
than others. The Egyptian gods and of course the Hindu deities...
contemplation of which colourful beings and ritual associated with the
paricular entity lifts the worshiper into an altered state of
conciousness in which it is possible to achieve a desired goal one has
in mind.
It doesn't matter which icon of which religion you choose but some
icons are more associated with the beautiful and artistic, others are
more associated with domination by any means etc etc.
Of course you are usually born into a religion, but many of us winkle
our way to something different later in life.
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/piddington.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/hercall.htm


watcher

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:47:17 PM5/21/02
to

"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:3cbleus5fq7qotano...@4ax.com...

> "watcher" <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >"NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in message
> >news:acea6l$od1$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> >> people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the proof.
> >> and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific
proof.
> >>
> >can you provide proof for Gods non existance?
>
> Can you provide proof that you don't owe me a thousand dollars?
>
Can you provide proof that I do?


Fred Stone

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:01:33 PM5/21/02
to

We rest our case.

--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369; linux user # 254178; machine # 138214

Dave

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:53:59 PM5/21/02
to

"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87u1p1g...@bast.r.caley.org.uk...

> In article <srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Dave
(d) writes:
>
> d> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
Atheist
> d> to prove that God does not exist.
>
> No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
> rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they have
> to provide a rational proof no god exists.

It is an irrational argument to expect proof that God or Unicorns or Goblins
do not exist.

If you believe in God or Unicorns or Goblins, show me the evidence.


Dave

unread,
May 21, 2002, 4:57:02 PM5/21/02
to

"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in

...if somoene wants to dispute that they have


> to provide a rational proof no god exists.
>
> Many atheists are quite sane and sensible and happy knowing that their
> atheism is based on non rational factors such as feeling that the idea
> of god is silly/ugly/insulting/whatver.

Kouros

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:09:33 PM5/21/02
to
"NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in news:aceahp$psm$1...@ins22.netins.net:

<snipped and re-edited>

>> can you provide proof for Gods non existance?

> absolutly.


How?

John Hattan

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:10:10 PM5/21/02
to
"watcher" <no...@none.com> wrote:

Waitwaitwait. First you insist that someone prove the negative assertion
of "Gods[sic] non existance". When I ask you to prove a similar negative
assertion, you suddenly change it to the need to prove the positive.

So is the burden of proof on the positive or negative claimant?

Kouros

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:15:34 PM5/21/02
to
"Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote in
news:rsyG8.4594$7M3.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net:

>> No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
>> rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they
>> have to provide a rational proof no god exists.
>
> It is an irrational argument to expect proof that God or Unicorns or
> Goblins do not exist.

I don't see how God can be equated to Unicorns or Goblins.

Unicorns or Goblins do not exist, because they would be solid beings of
solid matter. We have never found any remains of them, either complete or
fossilised.

Therefore we know they do not exist.

God, on the other hand, may not have no physical components - and if He
(She?) did, why would we ever find any remnants of them?

God, if He/She exists is an entirely different being to that of any
theoretical or actual creature.

> If you believe in God or Unicorns or Goblins, show me the evidence.

We are alive.

If God exists - God put us here. If God does not exist, then what we (or at
least, a lot of people) consider to be God is a set a remarkable
coincidences that led to our being - in which case, the very Universe
itself is our creator - hence the Universe being "God".

God, under one name or another, exists.

Daniel Kolle

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:16:44 PM5/21/02
to
"NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> thought hard and said:

>people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the proof.
>and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific proof.

...So much for this thread.

Kolle (kohl-lee); 14.
A.A. #2035.
The planet is fine, the people are fucked.

Kouros

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:20:17 PM5/21/02
to
John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in
news:spdleu0rja8h0mivu...@4ax.com:

<snip>

> Waitwaitwait. First you insist that someone prove the negative
> assertion of "Gods[sic] non existance". When I ask you to prove a
> similar negative assertion, you suddenly change it to the need to
> prove the positive.
>
> So is the burden of proof on the positive or negative claimant?

I think he was just making the point about making rash statements without
being able to back them up.

Saying "God does not exist" or "God exists" cannot be proven either way.

Gregory Gadow

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:20:02 PM5/21/02
to
Dave wrote:

> Hello,
>
> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the Atheist
> to prove that God does not exist.
>
> So let me ask the Theists:-
>
> Which God is it you believe in ?
>
> The Christian God, Muslim God or Jewish God ?
>
> Or is it one of the Hindu, Greek, Roman or Egyptian Gods...?

There is only One True God (tm) and it just happens to be the one I believe in.
If you don't belive as I do, therefore, you are bound for Hell and eternal
torment.

> Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
> the evidence that shows the others do not exist.

What part of One True God (tm) did you not understand? If I believe in the One
True God (tm), then there can be no other gods, true or otherwise. That's
logic.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
to the amount of real information available.
-- Gregory Benford


JeffLawrence

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:41:46 PM5/21/02
to
"Kouros" <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9215E2E4733...@195.92.193.157...

Therefore neither are correct.
Cheers
Jeff

JeffLawrence

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:47:20 PM5/21/02
to
"watcher" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:aceac0$p7lk4$1...@ID-18631.news.dfncis.de...

It seems to me that a theory that cannot be either proved or disproved might
have a slight flaw in it.
Cheers
Jeff

c3b3rus

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:53:40 PM5/21/02
to
In article <acef67$p2jjl$1...@ID-137830.news.dfncis.de>,
lawre...@zonnet.nl says...

Isn't that what makes it a theory? Once it's proven/disproven it becomes
either a fact or a fallacy......

The standpoint of this particular agnostic ;)


Regards

John Hattan

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:59:45 PM5/21/02
to
Kouros <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote:

>> Waitwaitwait. First you insist that someone prove the negative
>> assertion of "Gods[sic] non existance". When I ask you to prove a
>> similar negative assertion, you suddenly change it to the need to
>> prove the positive.
>>
>> So is the burden of proof on the positive or negative claimant?
>
>I think he was just making the point about making rash statements without
>being able to back them up.
>
>Saying "God does not exist" or "God exists" cannot be proven either way.

Depends on the god. If a god has contradictory attributes, then it can
indeed be proven to not exist in the same way that you can prove a
square circle to not exist.

JeffLawrence

unread,
May 21, 2002, 6:02:25 PM5/21/02
to
"c3b3rus" <nos...@nospam.spa> wrote in message
news:MPG.1754d23d8...@news.btinternet.com...

Well I wish they'd get a move on to do one of them.
Cheers
Jeff

vmi...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 21, 2002, 6:01:58 PM5/21/02
to
"Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
> Atheist to prove that God does not exist.
>
> So let me ask the Theists:-
>
> Which God is it you believe in ?

The One Who is The God of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Egyptians,
Romans, and *any and all* , including the atheists.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service

JeffLawrence

unread,
May 21, 2002, 6:04:42 PM5/21/02
to
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:aogleusgpoekgvh3q...@4ax.com...

> Kouros <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in
> >news:spdleu0rja8h0mivu...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> Waitwaitwait. First you insist that someone prove the negative
> >> assertion of "Gods[sic] non existance". When I ask you to prove a
> >> similar negative assertion, you suddenly change it to the need to
> >> prove the positive.
> >>
> >> So is the burden of proof on the positive or negative claimant?
> >
> >I think he was just making the point about making rash statements without
> >being able to back them up.
> >
> >Saying "God does not exist" or "God exists" cannot be proven either way.
>
> Depends on the god. If a god has contradictory attributes, then it can
> indeed be proven to not exist in the same way that you can prove a
> square circle to not exist.

Can you prove that a square circle doesn't exist? Maybe you've just never
seen one. Maybe it lives somewhere exotic and wild. Like Newport Pagnell.
Cheers
Jeff

Termite of Temptation

unread,
May 21, 2002, 6:34:00 PM5/21/02
to

"Kouros" <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9215E217832...@195.92.193.157...

> "Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote in
> news:rsyG8.4594$7M3.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net:
>
> >> No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
> >> rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they
> >> have to provide a rational proof no god exists.
> >
> > It is an irrational argument to expect proof that God or Unicorns or
> > Goblins do not exist.
>
> I don't see how God can be equated to Unicorns or Goblins.
>
> Unicorns or Goblins do not exist, because they would be solid beings of
> solid matter. We have never found any remains of them, either complete or
> fossilised.

How do you know what they would be? Maybe these are special magical
unicorns!

> Therefore we know they do not exist.

How about Zeus? Does the same proof work there?

> God, on the other hand, may not have no physical components - and if He
> (She?) did, why would we ever find any remnants of them?
>
> God, if He/She exists is an entirely different being to that of any
> theoretical or actual creature.

Why? I can posit ANY theoretical creature for your examination. I could
posit one almost identical to the God you posit - assuming you would be so
bold as to give the characteristics of this God.

> > If you believe in God or Unicorns or Goblins, show me the evidence.
>
> We are alive.
>
> If God exists - God put us here. If God does not exist, then what we (or
at
> least, a lot of people) consider to be God is a set a remarkable
> coincidences that led to our being - in which case, the very Universe
> itself is our creator - hence the Universe being "God".
>
> God, under one name or another, exists.

That's just a clever redefinition of the word. Doesn't do anything, really.
If you want to take God to mean that, then go ahead; however it is pretty
meaningless to say that God exists if you're willing to let God be the
universe. "The universe exists!" Wow, you're really going out on a limb
there.

Duncan


Termite of Temptation

unread,
May 21, 2002, 6:38:03 PM5/21/02
to

<vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020521180158.278$2...@newsreader.com...

> "Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
> > Atheist to prove that God does not exist.
> >
> > So let me ask the Theists:-
> >
> > Which God is it you believe in ?
>
> The One Who is The God of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Egyptians,
> Romans, and *any and all* , including the atheists.

Ah, you believe in the REAL God. But which one is that? Does He/She have a
name? Who worships Him/Her? Did He/She send His/Her only begotten son? Any
other myths or legends that might help us distinguish one imaginary being
from another?

Duncan


Edward Cowling London UK

unread,
May 21, 2002, 6:41:46 PM5/21/02
to
In article <srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Dave
<god...@email.com> writes

>
>Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
>the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
>

All religions are a group psychosis, brought on by the human fear of
mortality.

When mankind can live without made up Gods, the World will be a much
better place.

--
Edward Cowling London UK

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th

unread,
May 21, 2002, 7:01:14 PM5/21/02
to
Kouros <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote in
news:Xns9215E217832...@195.92.193.157:

> "Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote in
> news:rsyG8.4594$7M3.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net:
>
>>> No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
>>> rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they
>>> have to provide a rational proof no god exists.
>>
>> It is an irrational argument to expect proof that God or Unicorns or
>> Goblins do not exist.
>
> I don't see how God can be equated to Unicorns or Goblins.
>
> Unicorns or Goblins do not exist, because they would be solid beings
> of solid matter. We have never found any remains of them, either
> complete or fossilised.


Don't be silly - Unicorns are invisible! Just like Gawd. LOL

John Hattan

unread,
May 21, 2002, 7:06:29 PM5/21/02
to
vmi...@yahoo.com wrote:

>"Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
>> Atheist to prove that God does not exist.
>>
>> So let me ask the Theists:-
>>
>> Which God is it you believe in ?
>
>The One Who is The God of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Egyptians,
>Romans, and *any and all* , including the atheists.

Ahh, Quetzocoatl.

John Hattan

unread,
May 21, 2002, 7:10:20 PM5/21/02
to
"JeffLawrence" <lawre...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>news:aogleusgpoekgvh3q...@4ax.com...
>> Kouros <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote:
>> >John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in
>> >news:spdleu0rja8h0mivu...@4ax.com:
>> >
>> >> Waitwaitwait. First you insist that someone prove the negative
>> >> assertion of "Gods[sic] non existance". When I ask you to prove a
>> >> similar negative assertion, you suddenly change it to the need to
>> >> prove the positive.
>> >>
>> >> So is the burden of proof on the positive or negative claimant?
>> >
>> >I think he was just making the point about making rash statements without
>> >being able to back them up.
>> >
>> >Saying "God does not exist" or "God exists" cannot be proven either way.
>>
>> Depends on the god. If a god has contradictory attributes, then it can
>> indeed be proven to not exist in the same way that you can prove a
>> square circle to not exist.
>
>Can you prove that a square circle doesn't exist?

Yes I can. Squares are two dimensional figures with exactly four right
angles, no more and no fewer. Circles are two dimensional figures with
exactly zero right angles, no more and no fewer. Something cannot have
exactly four right angles and zero right angles at the same time. Hence
a square circle is impossible as defined.

>Maybe you've just never
>seen one. Maybe it lives somewhere exotic and wild. Like Newport Pagnell.

Heh.

Steve Knight

unread,
May 21, 2002, 7:18:32 PM5/21/02
to
On Tue, 21 May 2002 21:24:18 +0100, "watcher" <no...@none.com> wrote:

>"NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in message
>news:acea6l$od1$1...@ins22.netins.net...
>> people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the proof.
>> and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific proof.
>>
>can you provide proof for Gods non existance?
>

Atheism is not a claim or assertion. It's a neutral position with
respect to deities. Until evidence can be show that an all powerful
entity exists (and I won't hold my breath) then the subject is
regulated to ghosts, Fairies and Garden Pixies.

Lack of proof isn't evidence of proof. It's plain word soup
bullshit.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly

The Chosen Few

unread,
May 21, 2002, 7:39:48 PM5/21/02
to

"Kouros" <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9215E2E4733...@195.92.193.157...


Apeople.

(I prefer that to "amen" or "awomen," because it's not gender specfic, and
besides it has a Darwinist pun imbedded in it.)

;<)


The Chosen Few

unread,
May 21, 2002, 7:39:50 PM5/21/02
to

"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3CEAB98A...@serv.net...

[snip]

> Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
> to the amount of real information available.
> -- Gregory Benford


I like that! I like his SF novels, too. Nobody can write 'em like a
nuclear physicist, IMHO.


Omnipitus V2.0

unread,
May 21, 2002, 7:48:30 PM5/21/02
to
> [snip]
>
> > Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
> > to the amount of real information available.
> > -- Gregory Benford
>
>
> I like that! I like his SF novels, too. Nobody can write 'em like a
> nuclear physicist, IMHO.

Gimme a break!! As if more information is necessarily going to destroy
passion. It *would* take a physicist to make such an inhuman comment!

Intellectuals are the stupidest people on earth. ;-)


Steve Farrell

unread,
May 21, 2002, 8:08:12 PM5/21/02
to
At some point in the past (Tue, 21 May 2002 23:48:30 GMT, as it happens),
somebody called "Omnipitus V2.0" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> made the
following views known to all at uk.media.tv.misc

Truly this is a quote worthy of a sig.

Steve
--
'Intellecutals are the stupidest people on earth' - Omnipitus V2.0,
uk.media.tv.misc

The Chosen Few

unread,
May 21, 2002, 8:10:08 PM5/21/02
to

"Omnipitus V2.0" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acemdl$o3qto$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...

> > [snip]
> >
> > > Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
> > > to the amount of real information available.
> > > -- Gregory Benford
> >
> >
> > I like that! I like his SF novels, too. Nobody can write 'em like a
> > nuclear physicist, IMHO.
>
> Gimme a break!! As if more information is necessarily going to destroy
> passion. It *would* take a physicist to make such an inhuman comment!


Having read Benford's novels, which often feature passionate characters as
heroes, I presume that what he was referring to in his epigram was
irrational passion. And even that kind of passion, like any other form of
energy, can't be destroyed (at least, not in classical physics). It can
only be converted into other, hopefully more constructive, forms.


> Intellectuals are the stupidest people on earth. ;-)


I feel/think (aka believe) they're tied with emotionals in vying for that
distinction.


Mark A

unread,
May 21, 2002, 8:01:19 PM5/21/02
to
Steve Knight wrote:
>
> Atheism is not a claim or assertion. It's a neutral position with
> respect to deities. Until evidence can be show that an all powerful
> entity exists (and I won't hold my breath) then the subject is
> regulated to ghosts, Fairies and Garden Pixies.

No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position. In short,
it's as much a leap of faith as a deists.

> Lack of proof isn't evidence of proof. It's plain word soup
> bullshit.

Absolutely, but unfortunately it works in exactly the same way for both
sides of the debate.

Regards

Mark

John Hattan

unread,
May 21, 2002, 8:27:32 PM5/21/02
to
Mark A <m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote:

>Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
>despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position.

According to whom?

Clayton the Devil's Avacado

unread,
May 21, 2002, 8:41:42 PM5/21/02
to

"Mark A" <m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3CEADF...@rbgkew.org.uk...

> Steve Knight wrote:
> >
> > Atheism is not a claim or assertion. It's a neutral position with
> > respect to deities. Until evidence can be show that an all powerful
> > entity exists (and I won't hold my breath) then the subject is
> > regulated to ghosts, Fairies and Garden Pixies.
>
> No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
> despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position. In short,
> it's as much a leap of faith as a deists.

Do you think that it is an equal leap of faith to say that unicorns and
leprechauns and Zeus and Odin and Bungfort the Giant Breasted Monkey God
don't exist? All of them hold equal evidence and credibility as the
standard interpretation of God. Dismissing the absurd and impossible is not
faith...it is a little thing called accepting reality.

Termite of Temptation

unread,
May 21, 2002, 6:29:12 PM5/21/02
to

"Kouros" <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9215E2E4733...@195.92.193.157...

Correct. So to assert any of them is irrational; atheism asserts neither. It
is merely the absence of the claim "God exists". How is that irrational?

Duncan


Fester

unread,
May 22, 2002, 12:55:33 AM5/22/02
to

"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87u1p1g...@bast.r.caley.org.uk...

> In article <srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Dave
(d) writes:
>
> d> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
Atheist
> d> to prove that God does not exist.

>
> No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
> rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they have
> to provide a rational proof no god exists.

No, one just has to prove that it is rational to reject the existence of the
critter(s). For my part, I consider it rational to reject any hypothesis
that lacks any evidence to support it.

> Many atheists are quite sane and sensible and happy knowing that their
> atheism is based on non rational factors such as feeling that the idea
> of god is silly/ugly/insulting/whatver.

Speaking for myself, my opinion is not an aesthetic judgement. It is one
arrived at by the same processes by which I accept or reject all claims
about the natural world.

<snip>

Fester
The Not-So-Bad-Assed Atheist #369

Fester

unread,
May 22, 2002, 1:13:02 AM5/22/02
to

"Kouros" <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9215E2E4733...@195.92.193.157...
> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in
> news:spdleu0rja8h0mivu...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Waitwaitwait. First you insist that someone prove the negative
> > assertion of "Gods[sic] non existance". When I ask you to prove a
> > similar negative assertion, you suddenly change it to the need to
> > prove the positive.
> >
> > So is the burden of proof on the positive or negative claimant?
>
> I think he was just making the point about making rash statements without
> being able to back them up.
>
> Saying "God does not exist" or "God exists" cannot be proven either way.

Accepting this statement (it holds true for at least some definition of
gawd(s) that I know of), it is an evasion of the original question. That
being, "Is it rational to reject the gawd hypothesis?" I say absolutely.
In fact, the American Heritage Dict. defines rationalism as
:
"1. Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action. 2.
Philosophy The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience,
authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for
knowledge. "

What is acceptance of claims without evidence, but an example of definition
2? I make no claims by rejecting the gawd myths. I simply refuse to accept
the assertion made by those who believe.

welsh witch

unread,
May 21, 2002, 10:42:42 PM5/21/02
to


"Omnipitus V2.0" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acemdl$o3qto$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...

******************************
One of our kings who had his head chopped off Ican't quite remember
which one..I think probably Charles 1st...they said "He never said a
foolish thing nor ever did a wise
one!!"http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/piddington.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/hercall.htm

Olrik

unread,
May 21, 2002, 10:52:52 PM5/21/02
to

Outside of mathematics, very few, if any, scientific theories can be
proved, but they are all based on facts. Take gravity: it's still a
theory because the explanation for it by Einstein, while precise and
predictive, cannot be at this point "proved".

> The standpoint of this particular agnostic ;)
>
>
> Regards

--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member

Friendly Ghost

unread,
May 21, 2002, 10:50:11 PM5/21/02
to

"Kouros" <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9215E112175...@195.92.193.157...
> "NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in news:aceahp$psm$1...@ins22.netins.net:
>
> <snipped and re-edited>

>
> >> can you provide proof for Gods non existance?
>
> > absolutly.
>
>
> How?

Why, god non-exists every day. Ever tried praying for a new Mercedes? I'm
sure it is done thousands of times a day. Yet the only way to get one is to
go to the Mercedes dealer and carve yourself a deal.

Friendly Ghost
aa # 2011

Olrik

unread,
May 21, 2002, 10:57:28 PM5/21/02
to

No, it does not. Atheism is only a reaction to people telling us to
believe in a "god". We're only asking for evidence. In the meantime, we
are atheists.

> Regards
>
> Mark

welsh witch

unread,
May 21, 2002, 11:44:11 PM5/21/02
to


"Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:5QNmPKAq...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...

******************************************
No one seems to have come up with the very well known story.
The scientist had a guest to dinner. The guest was shown into a room
where there was a working model of the universe set up on the table.
Said the guest "That's brilliant...who made it?"
"No one said the scientist"
"Don't be daft" said the guest
"Oh no it just arrived.....Just like the universe you were telling
me???"

The Ritual Magician doesn't say he worships the god of the Hindu, the
Jews nor the Muslims or Christian or any other.
When asked who is God the over-all power in the universe he learns "I
am THAT I am" language preferred Latin, Greek or Hebrew!)This covers
all and goes beyond all belief systems.
It operates through the two great Ring Cosmos and Ring Chaos. Ring
Cosmos which is all the beautiful and creative and Ring Chaos all that
is destructive.
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/piddington.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/hercall.htm

NUNIA

unread,
May 21, 2002, 11:53:13 PM5/21/02
to

"Kouros" <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9215E112175...@195.92.193.157...
> "NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in news:aceahp$psm$1...@ins22.netins.net:
>
> <snipped and re-edited>
>
> >> can you provide proof for Gods non existance?
>
> > absolutly.
>
>
> How?

we would not be having this discussion.


Frank Wustner

unread,
May 21, 2002, 11:59:14 PM5/21/02
to
Kouros <webm...@quiche.org.uk> wrote:
> "Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote:

> > It is an irrational argument to expect proof that God or Unicorns or
> > Goblins do not exist.

> I don't see how God can be equated to Unicorns or Goblins.

It's very simple: all three, as far as can be found, are merely figments
of the imagination.

> Unicorns or Goblins do not exist, because they would be solid beings of
> solid matter.

And you know this because...?

> We have never found any remains of them, either complete or fossilised.

> Therefore we know they do not exist.

> God, on the other hand, may not have no physical components - and if He
> (She?) did, why would we ever find any remnants of them?

> God, if He/She exists is an entirely different being to that of any
> theoretical or actual creature.

Special pleading. If you think we will accept all of that merely on your
say-so, you are sadly mistaken. We have no reason to believe that this
"God" creature you speak of is any different from the tooth fairy.

> > If you believe in God or Unicorns or Goblins, show me the evidence.

> We are alive.

So?

> If God exists - God put us here.

Proof, please.

> If God does not exist, then what we (or at
> least, a lot of people) consider to be God is a set a remarkable
> coincidences that led to our being - in which case, the very Universe
> itself is our creator - hence the Universe being "God".

Ah. So you are making the under-the-table assertion that God = creator.

Well, guess what? Kouros = deadbeat who owes me £10,000.

Do you accept my assertion about you? No, I thought not. Well, I don't
accept your assertion about "God". Provide proof, not empty assertions.

> God, under one name or another, exists.

Rejected until you provide a coherent definition of God, and then prove
that this thing exists.

--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/

|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|

Thomas P.

unread,
May 22, 2002, 12:38:00 AM5/22/02
to
On Tue, 21 May 2002 20:01:00 GMT, Richard Caley
<MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Dave (d) writes:
>
>d> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the Atheist
>d> to prove that God does not exist.
>
>No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
>rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they have
>to provide a rational proof no god exists.

Which is wrong. It is perfectly rational not to believe in something
for which there is no evidence.

>
>Many atheists are quite sane and sensible and happy knowing that their
>atheism is based on non rational factors such as feeling that the idea
>of god is silly/ugly/insulting/whatver.

The above is total nonsense. The belief in god is based on feelings.


>
>d> Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
>d> the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
>
>There is no god but KaTe and Dave ws her prophet.
>
>If you need proof you are not playing it loud enough.

Talk about being irrational.

>
>--
>Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
> |<
>

Thomas P.

"You know", he added very gravely, "it's one of the most serious things that can possibly happen to one in a battle-to get one's head cut off."

Mike

unread,
May 22, 2002, 12:52:02 AM5/22/02
to

"Mark A" <m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3CEADF...@rbgkew.org.uk...
>
> No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
> despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position. In short,
> it's as much a leap of faith as a deists.
>

Atheism is not the firm belief that no deity exists. Atheism is simply the
position of not claiming the existence of any deity. A theist claims that
at least one deity exists. An atheist does not make that claim. Period.

As an atheist, I may claim that certain gods do not exist. For example, any
deity based on the bible, does not exist. The bible contains so many
contradictions that a deity based on the entirety of the bible cannot exist.
However, there may be some gods for which I do not claim it positively does
not exist. I make no such claim for the Deist god. Based on my
understanding of that god, it cannot be proven to exist or to not exist.
However, I do not claim that it exists (since there is no evidence pointing
to its existence) so I am still considered an atheist. I also do not claim
that it does not exist (since there is no evidence positively pointing to
its non-existence).

Recap:

Theist - claims at least one deity exists.
Atheist - does not claim any deity exists.

Mike


JeffLawrence

unread,
May 22, 2002, 1:06:40 AM5/22/02
to
"Mark A" <m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3CEADF...@rbgkew.org.uk...
> Steve Knight wrote:
> >
> > Atheism is not a claim or assertion. It's a neutral position with
> > respect to deities. Until evidence can be show that an all powerful
> > entity exists (and I won't hold my breath) then the subject is
> > regulated to ghosts, Fairies and Garden Pixies.
>
> No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
> despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position. In short,
> it's as much a leap of faith as a deists.

How can you prove something doesn't exist?
Cheers
Jeff


Skraedder

unread,
May 22, 2002, 3:17:02 AM5/22/02
to
"watcher" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:aceac0$p7lk4$1...@ID-18631.news.dfncis.de...
> "NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in message
> news:acea6l$od1$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> > people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the
proof.
> > and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific
proof.
> >
> can you provide proof for Gods non existance?
>
>

It's the existance that needs proving not the non-existance

--
Skræðer

Skraedder

unread,
May 22, 2002, 3:23:59 AM5/22/02
to
"Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:5QNmPKAq...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> All religions are a group psychosis, brought on by the human fear of
> mortality.
>
> When mankind can live without made up Gods, the World will be a much
> better place.
>

At last, we get to the substance of the argument.

--
Skræðer


Donald Pearce

unread,
May 22, 2002, 3:38:33 AM5/22/02
to
In article <acfh2v$k70$1...@rdel.co.uk>, Skra...@skraedder.com says...

It is a matter of extreme shame that today, hundreds of years after
Newton turned on the lights, 99% of mankind are still ignorant peasants
cowering before the supernatural in the darkness of religion.

--

Don Pearce
Telecommunications consultant
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Will

unread,
May 22, 2002, 3:54:32 AM5/22/02
to

"Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote in message
news:srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Hello,

>
> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
Atheist
> to prove that God does not exist.
>
> So let me ask the Theists:-
>
> Which God is it you believe in ?
>
> The Christian God, Muslim God or Jewish God ?
>
> Or is it one of the Hindu, Greek, Roman or Egyptian Gods...?

>
> Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please
provide
> the evidence that shows the others do not exist.

The question is not disproving the existence of "other" gods, but
accepting that people source the same knowledge from different point in
the same river. How people interpret that spiritual information, by
assigning it to a God, Gods, Humanity, Nature, Collective Unconscious is
largely irrelevant. How you perceive *God* or *spirituality* is largely
due to local factors.


Will

unread,
May 22, 2002, 4:04:57 AM5/22/02
to

"Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:5QNmPKAq...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> In article <srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
Dave
> <god...@email.com> writes

> >
> >Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please
provide
> >the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
> >
>
> All religions are a group psychosis,

You're forgetting about those who worship singley.....

brought on by the human fear of
> mortality.

And those who beleive in a deity but have no belief in an afterlife....

> When mankind can live without made up Gods, the World will be a much
> better place.

Well.....depends on whether said folks are trying to pressure you into
believing or not. I haven't got a problem with anyone who believes as
long as I'm not preached to......I have no problem with discussion of
god/gods/spirituality but I don't want to be "converted"......I'm quite
happy as I am thanks :-)


Mark A

unread,
May 22, 2002, 4:10:07 AM5/22/02
to
John Hattan wrote:
>
> >Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
> >despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position.
>
> According to whom?

Any dictionary you care to look in.

Regards

Mark

Mark A

unread,
May 22, 2002, 4:29:04 AM5/22/02
to
Clayton the Devil's Avacado wrote:
>
> Do you think that it is an equal leap of faith to say that unicorns
> and leprechauns and Zeus and Odin and Bungfort the Giant Breasted
> Monkey God don't exist?

I always liked Zeus myself, but Odin was a bit of a pain, though Xena
sorted him out.

> All of them hold equal evidence and credibility as the standard
> interpretation of God. Dismissing the absurd and impossible is not
> faith...it is a little thing called accepting reality.

Yes, but what is really the nature of reality? That may seem like a
jocular thing to say, but it is actually at the very core of all things,
so it must be taken into consideration.

Regards

Mark

Mark A

unread,
May 22, 2002, 4:35:54 AM5/22/02
to
Olrik wrote:
>
> No, it does not. Atheism is only a reaction to people telling us to
> believe in a "god". We're only asking for evidence. In the meantime,
> we are atheists.

No an atheist does not believe, period. Look in any dictionary. Under
that strict definition it should hold true that you won't believe even
in the face of evidence against your position (not that any actually
exists, but logically that's beside the point). Therefore it is a blind
faith as much as a deist's blind faith, just in the opposite direction.
Neither of you need any sort of proof for your positions, which is just
as well because none has ever been found.

Now if you think you are simply waiting for evidence that might convince
you one way or the other, then you're an agnostic, not an atheist.

Regards

Mark

Mark A

unread,
May 22, 2002, 4:40:08 AM5/22/02
to
Mike wrote:
>
> Atheism is not the firm belief that no deity exists.

Yes it is, look in any dictionary. For example from my desk dictionary
Collins Reference:

"atheism n. belief that there is no god"

Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that you're an agnostic, not an
atheist after all? Or perhaps you like having a faith, I don't know.

Regards

Mark

Mark A

unread,
May 22, 2002, 4:41:51 AM5/22/02
to
JeffLawrence wrote:
>
> How can you prove something doesn't exist?

It sure ain't easy. Not that that's stopped a lot of people having leaps
of faith and making assumptions about things they have no proper
evidence for.

Guess it's human nature.

Regards

Mark

Mark A

unread,
May 22, 2002, 4:57:13 AM5/22/02