| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Chas" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2003 01:44:08 PM |
| Object: |
A different take |
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god. It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her
non-existence. Nonetheless there is no shortage of folks who are still at it
after hundreds of years.
As one who counts himself an atheist I think it's a waste of time and effort
to attempt to prove that which is unprovable. Besides, if tomorrow it were
conclusively demonstrated there was no god, does anyone really believe all
the clerics would quit, religious building would be converted to restaurants
and little theaters, and believers would buy rabbit's feet and four leaf
clovers ?
For me, increasingly, it's more interesting to ask the question: What has
religion done for us ? The usual response is, look what a louse mankind is,
think how much worse he would be without religion. How much worse would he
be ? How bad are things in Netherlands ? In Sweden ? Denmark ? The morality
of a people bares no apparent correlation with their belief in a god.
Is there another industrialized country in the world where the belief in a
god and attendance in some religious institution is greater than in the
United States, and how do we compare in our crime rates, particularly
murder; our incarceration rates, numbers of abortion or drug addicts ? If
belief in a god is so important in living "a good life," how does it
evidence itself ?
How much does religion cost ? In the United States most church property is
exempt from taxes. What would the tax rate in most of cities be if such
property were taxed as the ordinary taxpayer is taxed ? It will be argued
that the charitable activities of the churches more than pay for themselves
? Do they ? Where is the evidence of it. If religious property were taxed,
how much charity could that income buy ?
To what extent is religious charity little more than extortion ? If the
homeless want a place to sleep or an evening meal, do they get it without
having to listen to some religious person try to sell them their beliefs.
And, by the way, where can it be shown that starting and ending each day
with a prayer makes any difference in one's life ? I attended high school
when each day was started with The Pledge and each assembly with a prayer.
Some graduates supported the war in Viet Nam and even enlisted; others
opposed the war and demonstrated, even burning their draft cards.
More fundamental, so far as I'm concerned, is what god has to say. Well, god
doesn't say anything, she just has spokespersons. And what they have to say
is their idea of what their scripture says. When I hear Falwell and his type
tell me what god wants, I don't hear god, I hear Falwell. Might not atheists
be more successful if, instead of worrying about the existence of a god,
they questioned those who claim they speak for god ? Isn't there some point
at which the claims of revelation of these self-anointed ministers can be
questioned ?
Some time ago I suggested that atheists are too ambitious. They should start
with something easier. Prove there is no Easter Bunny. Once successful in
that, move on to the proof there is no Santa Claus. Then move on to proving
angels and devils don't exist. After that, prove there is no god. Atheists
should walk before they run.
Now my request is for something even more modest: demonstrate that religion
is, for the most part, irrelevant and expensive.
.
|
|
| User: "jack_the_mormon" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 07:07:50 PM |
|
|
<snip for brevity>
Now my request is for something even more modest: demonstrate that religion
is, for the most part, irrelevant and expensive.
I think proving that religion is irrelevent would be much more
difficult than proving there is no god. Religion has been around
since the dawn of man - even Cro Magnum Man held burials and left
evidence that he believed in an afterlife. As such, belief in myths
must have held some evolutionary benefit because the "belief" gene has
been selected into the human race. As a species, we are quick to
believe myth, be it ancient, modern or urban in nature. Religion
probably gave early man a sense of community and a bond.
Modern religion, though rife with problems, can also serve worthwhile
purposes. Though a crutch it may be, it is a cruth that has helped
addicts overcome addictions (see alcoholics anonymous 12 steps).
Religion still today can give one a sense of community - it can
provide a gathering place for neighbors to address real life issues
that afflict them *today.
I consider myself a religious humanist. I don't believe in god, but I
believe in the power of community and in serving others less fortunate
than myself. Not because god said so, but because helping ones
neighbors is how we survived as a race in the first place. Religion
has it's place in this world - it is *god who does not.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 08:51:47 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> wrote
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying
to prove there is no god.
Cites, please.
It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her
non-existence.
Not really, no. Trying to get the bible thumpers to nail down
a definition & description of "God," on the other hand, is
an impossible task.
You can't "prove" something doesn't exist when nobody will
define what the something is.
As I pointed out in the past, could you imagine trying to "prove"
that some creature doesn't exist when nobody will define and
describe that creature?
How could you do it?
You don't have the faintest idea what people are claiming to
be seeing, yet you're supposed to "prove" that no such animal
exists?
Please.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
10 Sep 2003 08:13:41 AM |
|
|
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> wrote in message
news:X547b.14$gd7.6@news.randori.com...
<snipped> think how much worse he would be without religion. How much worse
would he
be ? How bad are things in Netherlands ? In Sweden ? Denmark ? The
morality
of a people bares no apparent correlation with their belief in a god.
Are you saying that those countiries are more, or less religious than the
U.S.?
Is there another industrialized country in the world where the belief in a
god and attendance in some religious institution is greater than in the
United States, and how do we compare in our crime rates, particularly
murder; our incarceration rates, numbers of abortion or drug addicts ? If
belief in a god is so important in living "a good life," how does it
evidence itself ?
The question can't be answered since there is no comparison between tehe
degree of religion in various countries, in order to hypothesize a
connection with the crime rate.
How much does religion cost ? In the United States most church property is
exempt from taxes. What would the tax rate in most of cities be if such
property were taxed as the ordinary taxpayer is taxed ? It will be argued
that the charitable activities of the churches more than pay for
themselves
? Do they ? Where is the evidence of it. If religious property were taxed,
how much charity could that income buy ?
This is the best question! The churches actually do relatively little in
the way of charity and much more to gratify the members. They are basically
private clubs, akin to country clubs. a few do actually help the homeless
without asking them to participate in religious services. often these
particular churches are singled out for opposition by the communities in
which they reside for attracting the poor into the area.
To what extent is religious charity little more than extortion ? If the
homeless want a place to sleep or an evening meal, do they get it without
having to listen to some religious person try to sell them their beliefs.
And, by the way, where can it be shown that starting and ending each day
with a prayer makes any difference in one's life ? I attended high school
when each day was started with The Pledge and each assembly with a prayer.
Some graduates supported the war in Viet Nam and even enlisted; others
opposed the war and demonstrated, even burning their draft cards.
More fundamental, so far as I'm concerned, is what god has to say. Well,
god
doesn't say anything, she just has spokespersons. And what they have to
say
is their idea of what their scripture says. When I hear Falwell and his
type
tell me what god wants, I don't hear god, I hear Falwell. Might not
atheists
be more successful if, instead of worrying about the existence of a god,
they questioned those who claim they speak for god ? Isn't there some
point
at which the claims of revelation of these self-anointed ministers can be
questioned ?
Some time ago I suggested that atheists are too ambitious. They should
start
with something easier. Prove there is no Easter Bunny. Once successful in
that, move on to the proof there is no Santa Claus. Then move on to
proving
angels and devils don't exist. After that, prove there is no god. Atheists
should walk before they run.
Are you saying there's no reindeer with a lighted nose who was ostracized
by the other reindeer and not allowed to play reindeer games?
Now my request is for something even more modest: demonstrate that
religion
is, for the most part, irrelevant and expensive.
OK it's irrevelant and expensive. Now what?
--
:"Everythin's better with DoFunny on it."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 07:57:28 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> wrote in message
news:X547b.14$gd7.6@news.randori.com...
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is
no
god.
It seems to me that you're full of *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 08:45:08 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> wrote in message
news:X547b.14$gd7.6@news.randori.com...
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is
no
god. It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her
non-existence. Nonetheless there is no shortage of folks who are still at
it
after hundreds of years.
As one who counts himself an atheist I think it's a waste of time and
effort
to attempt to prove that which is unprovable. Besides, if tomorrow it were
conclusively demonstrated there was no god, does anyone really believe all
the clerics would quit, religious building would be converted to
restaurants
and little theaters, and believers would buy rabbit's feet and four leaf
clovers ?
For me, increasingly, it's more interesting to ask the question: What has
religion done for us ? The usual response is, look what a louse mankind
is,
think how much worse he would be without religion. How much worse would he
be ? How bad are things in Netherlands ? In Sweden ? Denmark ? The
morality
of a people bares no apparent correlation with their belief in a god.
Are you saying that those countiries are more, or less religious than the
U.S.?
Is there another industrialized country in the world where the belief in a
god and attendance in some religious institution is greater than in the
United States, and how do we compare in our crime rates, particularly
murder; our incarceration rates, numbers of abortion or drug addicts ? If
belief in a god is so important in living "a good life," how does it
evidence itself ?
The question can't be answered since there is no comparison between tehe
degree of religion in various countries, in order to hypothesize a
connection with the crime rate.
How much does religion cost ? In the United States most church property is
exempt from taxes. What would the tax rate in most of cities be if such
property were taxed as the ordinary taxpayer is taxed ? It will be argued
that the charitable activities of the churches more than pay for
themselves
? Do they ? Where is the evidence of it. If religious property were taxed,
how much charity could that income buy ?
This is the best question! The churches actually do relatively little in
the way of charity and much more to gratify the members. They are basically
private clubs, akin to country clubs. a few do actually help the homeless
without asking them to participate in religious services. often these
particular churches are singled out for opposition by the communities in
which they reside for attracting the poor into the area.
To what extent is religious charity little more than extortion ? If the
homeless want a place to sleep or an evening meal, do they get it without
having to listen to some religious person try to sell them their beliefs.
And, by the way, where can it be shown that starting and ending each day
with a prayer makes any difference in one's life ? I attended high school
when each day was started with The Pledge and each assembly with a prayer.
Some graduates supported the war in Viet Nam and even enlisted; others
opposed the war and demonstrated, even burning their draft cards.
More fundamental, so far as I'm concerned, is what god has to say. Well,
god
doesn't say anything, she just has spokespersons. And what they have to
say
is their idea of what their scripture says. When I hear Falwell and his
type
tell me what god wants, I don't hear god, I hear Falwell. Might not
atheists
be more successful if, instead of worrying about the existence of a god,
they questioned those who claim they speak for god ? Isn't there some
point
at which the claims of revelation of these self-anointed ministers can be
questioned ?
Some time ago I suggested that atheists are too ambitious. They should
start
with something easier. Prove there is no Easter Bunny. Once successful in
that, move on to the proof there is no Santa Claus. Then move on to
proving
angels and devils don't exist. After that, prove there is no god. Atheists
should walk before they run.
Are you saying there's no reindeer with a lighted nose who was ostracized
by the other reindeer and not allowed to play reindeer games?
Now my request is for something even more modest: demonstrate that
religion
is, for the most part, irrelevant and expensive.
OK it's irrevelant and expensive. Now what?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
09 Sep 2003 02:19:03 AM |
|
|
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> wrote in message
news:X547b.14$gd7.6@news.randori.com...
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is
no
god. It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her
non-existence. Nonetheless there is no shortage of folks who are still at
it
after hundreds of years.
I don't have to prove the non-existence of a god. Actually, that can't be
done. I am simply waiting for theists to provide proof of their gods. This
has not yet happened, and therefor it is obvious that there is no point in
believing in god.
[...]
For me, increasingly, it's more interesting to ask the question: What has
religion done for us ? The usual response is, look what a louse mankind
is,
think how much worse he would be without religion. How much worse would he
be ? How bad are things in Netherlands ? In Sweden ? Denmark ? The
morality
of a people bares no apparent correlation with their belief in a god.
There is still a belief in god in Sweden, but you're right, it's much lower
than in some other countries, I am sure. I wouldn't want religion to have
more influence. As little as possible.
Is there another industrialized country in the world where the belief in a
god and attendance in some religious institution is greater than in the
United States, and how do we compare in our crime rates, particularly
murder; our incarceration rates, numbers of abortion or drug addicts ? If
belief in a god is so important in living "a good life," how does it
evidence itself ?
How much does religion cost ? In the United States most church property is
exempt from taxes. What would the tax rate in most of cities be if such
property were taxed as the ordinary taxpayer is taxed ? It will be argued
that the charitable activities of the churches more than pay for
themselves
? Do they ? Where is the evidence of it. If religious property were taxed,
how much charity could that income buy ?
How much it cost? I wouldn't be surprised if the long term cost would rise
if creationism would be included in high school for example, since that
would pretty much ruin many student's chances to go on to higher studies in
the sciences.
To what extent is religious charity little more than extortion ? If the
homeless want a place to sleep or an evening meal, do they get it without
having to listen to some religious person try to sell them their beliefs.
And, by the way, where can it be shown that starting and ending each day
with a prayer makes any difference in one's life ? I attended high school
when each day was started with The Pledge and each assembly with a prayer.
Some graduates supported the war in Viet Nam and even enlisted; others
opposed the war and demonstrated, even burning their draft cards.
But why include such rituals in an institution supposedly built for
learning?
[...]
Some time ago I suggested that atheists are too ambitious. They should
start
with something easier. Prove there is no Easter Bunny. Once successful in
that, move on to the proof there is no Santa Claus. Then move on to
proving
angels and devils don't exist. After that, prove there is no god. Atheists
should walk before they run.
Again, you can't do that. However, you can exclude any such garbage from the
theories and models that we have to describe the world, simply because there
is no need to include them. There is NOTHING that suggests that there is an
easter bunny, a santa claus, angels or devils, or gods. It's excess baggage.
It's up to the theists to prove their god's existence. Interesting how they
have failed to do so, isn't it? They truly and genuinely believe, yet they
have absolutely no reason to.
Now my request is for something even more modest: demonstrate that
religion
is, for the most part, irrelevant and expensive.
I think it's doing a great job all on its own.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Offermann" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 04:14:00 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> wrote in message
news:X547b.14$gd7.6@news.randori.com...
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is
no
god. It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her
non-existence. Nonetheless there is no shortage of folks who are still at
it
after hundreds of years.
My aunt told my cousin that Santa Claus did not really exist. He
asked for some proof of this. So he still believes in Santa. He's now
a parent and still believes since no evidence has been shown to the
contrary. He is now teaching his kids (and his wife) about the
great Santa. He goes around to his neighbors' homes trying to
get them to believe too.
Isn't that crazy?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 04:56:37 PM |
|
|
In article <X547b.14$gd7.6@news.randori.com>,
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> wrote:
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god.
Funny. I've never tried to prove that. What's more, I don't know any
atheists who have tried it either.
Try again, straw-boy.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 02:27:40 PM |
|
|
On 08 Sep 2003, "Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:X547b.14$gd7.6@news.randori.com:
Now my request is for something even more modest: demonstrate that
religion is, for the most part, irrelevant and expensive.
This is a known fact -- problem is that the believers in religion won't
accept it. You posted the evidence yourself -- predominantly nonreligious
nations actually tend to be *less* crime-plagued than predominantly
religious ones.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized
I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 09:21:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:44:08 GMT, "Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god.
Nope. Maybe you're thinking of anti-theists. We atheists just don't
believe in any gods.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Wain" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
10 Sep 2003 05:25:30 PM |
|
|
In message <o6eqlv0bsr6v67ojvs4fadve5b8nr85ug3@Pern.rk>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> writes
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:44:08 GMT, "Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god.
Nope. Maybe you're thinking of anti-theists. We atheists just don't
believe in any gods.
No, we anti-theists simply BELIEVE in the non-existence of God. We
don't have to prove it. Proof denies faith, haven't you heard?
Science isn't powerful because it is true,
It is true because it is powerful.--
Phil Wain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
10 Sep 2003 07:01:16 PM |
|
|
Phil Wain <Phil@softquality.demon.co.uk> said:
....
Science isn't powerful because it is true,
It is true because it is powerful.--
Or, perhaps, power and truth are synonyms.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Wain" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
10 Sep 2003 09:07:10 PM |
|
|
In message <skevlvo7r8v1opb8dfjggebk377vbpk2ph@4ax.com>, Jim07D3
<Jim07D3@nospam.net> writes
Phil Wain <Phil@softquality.demon.co.uk> said:
...
Science isn't powerful because it is true,
It is true because it is powerful.--
Or, perhaps, power and truth are synonyms.
Jim07D3
No, I think the ordering here is important. The test of the worth of a
scientific theory is its value, the extent to which it works, if you
like. As soon as something more powerful is theorized, the old one is
discarded. If the religious notion is true, why can you not use the
ideas to build a computer, clone a sheep or fly?
--
Phil Wain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
11 Sep 2003 12:26:10 AM |
|
|
Phil Wain <Phil@softquality.demon.co.uk> said:
In message <skevlvo7r8v1opb8dfjggebk377vbpk2ph@4ax.com>, Jim07D3
<Jim07D3@nospam.net> writes
Phil Wain <Phil@softquality.demon.co.uk> said:
...
Science isn't powerful because it is true,
It is true because it is powerful.--
Or, perhaps, power and truth are synonyms.
Jim07D3
No, I think the ordering here is important. The test of the worth of a
scientific theory is its value, the extent to which it works, if you
like.
Then I'd expect you to say that the test of the *truth* of a
scientific theory is its value (power). This is William James'
pragmatic theory of truth, in a way.
As soon as something more powerful is theorized, the old one is
discarded.
Perhaps you are saying that power is a necessary aspect of truth? Then
there are relative degrees of truth, for example, Newtonian physics is
less true than Einsteinian.
If the religious notion is true, why can you not use the
ideas to build a computer, clone a sheep or fly?
Well, perhaps the religious notion has to do with another subject
matter that these. For example, the ideas that we use to do these
things, will not gain us salvation, unless there is a deity that
rewards the building of computers, the cloning of sheep, or flying.
;-) (I am speaking as a non-theist.)
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Wain" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
11 Sep 2003 09:29:11 PM |
|
|
In message <sb10mvs54qucda6tto6k8m077j5lm9hadc@4ax.com>, Jim07D3
<Jim07D3@nospam.net> writes
Phil Wain <Phil@softquality.demon.co.uk> said:
In message <skevlvo7r8v1opb8dfjggebk377vbpk2ph@4ax.com>, Jim07D3
<Jim07D3@nospam.net> writes
Phil Wain <Phil@softquality.demon.co.uk> said:
...
Science isn't powerful because it is true,
It is true because it is powerful.--
Or, perhaps, power and truth are synonyms.
Jim07D3
No, I think the ordering here is important. The test of the worth of a
scientific theory is its value, the extent to which it works, if you
like.
Then I'd expect you to say that the test of the *truth* of a
scientific theory is its value (power). This is William James'
pragmatic theory of truth, in a way.
"Well, I guess so", (he said cautiously, sensing a trap).
As soon as something more powerful is theorized, the old one is
discarded.
Perhaps you are saying that power is a necessary aspect of truth?
Of scientific truth, certainly. Maybe other truths too, I can't say
I've really thought about that.
Then
there are relative degrees of truth, for example, Newtonian physics is
less true than Einsteinian.
Yeees. There's that trap closing again. Einstein is certainly
relatively true, LoL
If the religious notion is true, why can you not use the
ideas to build a computer, clone a sheep or fly?
Well, perhaps the religious notion has to do with another subject
matter that these. For example, the ideas that we use to do these
things, will not gain us salvation, unless there is a deity that
rewards the building of computers, the cloning of sheep, or flying.
;-) (I am speaking as a non-theist.)
Jim07D3
Salvation? Who needs it? I get along perfectly well without it.
(Speaking as an anti-theist).
If religious ideas are there to gain us salvation, show me someone who
can prove he has been saved. Frankly, I'll take my payback in the here
and now.
--
Phil Wain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 02:45:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:44:08 GMT, "Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net>
wrote:
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god.
Why would anyone waste their time on something so pointless?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 02:24:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:44:08 GMT, several witnesses claim to have seen
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> scrawl a message on the wall:
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god. It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her
non-existence. Nonetheless there is no shortage of folks who are still at it
after hundreds of years.
Actually, we just theists to supply proof. That drives them nuts, and
eventually they go away.
--
Douglas Berry
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 02:29:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:24:55 GMT, Douglas Berry <gridlore@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:44:08 GMT, several witnesses claim to have seen
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> scrawl a message on the wall:
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god. It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her
non-existence. Nonetheless there is no shortage of folks who are still at it
after hundreds of years.
Actually, we just theists to supply proof. That drives them nuts, and
eventually they go away.
I'd be impressed if any theist could come up with a *single* scrap
of evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 09:21:45 PM |
|
|
On 08 Sep 2003 19:29:29 GMT, TCS
<The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:24:55 GMT, Douglas Berry <gridlore@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:44:08 GMT, several witnesses claim to have seen
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> scrawl a message on the wall:
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god. It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her
non-existence. Nonetheless there is no shortage of folks who are still at it
after hundreds of years.
Actually, we just theists to supply proof. That drives them nuts, and
eventually they go away.
I'd be impressed if any theist could come up with a *single* scrap
of evidence.
None has yet, in tens of thousands of years.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 09:50:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:21:45 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 08 Sep 2003 19:29:29 GMT, TCS
<The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:24:55 GMT, Douglas Berry <gridlore@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:44:08 GMT, several witnesses claim to have seen
"Chas" <chas@net.bluemoon.net> scrawl a message on the wall:
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god. It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her
non-existence. Nonetheless there is no shortage of folks who are still at it
after hundreds of years.
Actually, we just theists to supply proof. That drives them nuts, and
eventually they go away.
I'd be impressed if any theist could come up with a *single* scrap
of evidence.
None has yet, in tens of thousands of years.
And they never will. gods don't exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: A different take |
08 Sep 2003 03:31:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Chas wrote:
It seems to me that atheists spend too much time trying to prove there is no
god.
To whom do you refer? Who is going around trying to prove a negative?
It is as likely one can prove the existence of a god as her non-existence.
Do you speak of what you do not know, or are you prepared to do this for
us?
Nonetheless there is no shortage of folks who are still at it
after hundreds of years.
Examples?
As one who counts himself an atheist I think it's a waste of time and effort
to attempt to prove that which is unprovable.
Who is able to do such a thing?
Besides, if tomorrow it were
conclusively demonstrated there was no god, does anyone really believe all
the clerics would quit, religious building would be converted to restaurants
and little theaters, and believers would buy rabbit's feet and four leaf
clovers ?
If there was no such a thing as religion, someone would probably invent
one.
For me, increasingly, it's more interesting to ask the question: What has
religion done for us ? The usual response is, look what a louse mankind is,
think how much worse he would be without religion. How much worse would he
be ? How bad are things in Netherlands ? In Sweden ? Denmark ? The morality
of a people bares no apparent correlation with their belief in a god.
It also bears no apparent correlation with their belief in a god.
... Isn't there some point
at which the claims of revelation of these self-anointed ministers can be
questioned ?
No particular point. Or time. Or occasion. This should be done always.
Ever.
Some time ago I suggested that atheists are too ambitious. They should start
with something easier. Prove there is no Easter Bunny. Once successful in
that, move on to the proof there is no Santa Claus. Then move on to proving
angels and devils don't exist. After that, prove there is no god. Atheists
should walk before they run.
Now my request is for something even more modest: demonstrate that religion
is, for the most part, irrelevant and expensive.
You went to great lengths to say it is irrelevant. ;-)
Good job.
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
the few." -- Marie Henri Beyle (Stendhal)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
