| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ScopeDopeUSAF" |
| Date: |
02 Mar 2007 07:55:16 PM |
| Object: |
A helping hand for all the Theists |
This is a work in progress. I am publishing it here to see if I can
garner some good critical feed back. Please understand that I am not
nor do I claim to be an expert on Atheism or Theism and that my
viewpoints and opinions are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily
represent any Atheist or Theist groups at large. Thank You.
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears. It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position. To
say this another way; if either side were willing or able to
incorporate the others argument then there would suddenly be no
argument because it is that very incorporation of ideas which each
side is truly striving to achieve. For example; Theists cannot use
objective evidence to support their faith because if they do it ceases
to be faith. They cannot hold two contradictory positions
simultaneously; one must go. The same can be said for Atheists
regarding objective reality. The question for Theists then becomes,
"How do I argue against Atheism?" While I cannot make the argument
for you I think we can critically analyse the Atheist position, and
from it better understand where Theist arguments should be directed.
We will also examine the most common pitfall that Theists fall into
when debating Atheists.
Atheists at their core believe in an objective reality. To best
understand this we turn to a useful logic tool known as an axiom. An
axiom is a proposition assumed without proof for the sake of studying
the consequences that follow from it. In this case the Atheist axiom
is "Reality is real". In fact we can go further and say that reality
is just a set of attributes and rules that have been repeatedly
observed. And that real means that those observed attributes and
rules operate without being broken, but when they are we update our
knowledge of "Reality" to include these new data. For instance; I and
a multitude of scientists have gathered a great mountain of data
regarding the movement of Widgets through a vacuum. We know that
Widgets take up space and have mass. We say we "know" this because we
have independently observed this and performed a variety of tests that
show this all of these observations are repeatable and have been
repeated a great number of times. One of the things we know is that
when traveling through a vacuum Widgets do NOT turn into chocolate
frosting. Widgets turning into to chocolate frosting is not REAL.
The rules we have observed the Widgets follow do not lead us to
believe that this would ever happen, ever. If someone was to ever ask
me if a Widget could turn into chocolate frosting while traveling
through a vacuum I would say, "No". What I would really be saying
is, "Based on the evidence we have gathered so far, which is a large
amount by the way, I would have to say that the probability of a
Widget turning into chocolate frosting while traveling through a
vacuum is so improbable that there could have been billions of Widgets
flying through space (a vacuum) since the beginning of time and not
one of them would have ever turned into chocolate frosting. So while
I am not saying it is impossible for it to happen I and my colleagues
would never base any action or assumption on the absurdly improbable
hope that a Widget flying through a vacuum would turn into chocolate
frosting." This is what reality and real mean to Atheists.
While I could write a whole book using the above argument as a spring
board for the entire Atheist argument another and much smarter man
than I has already done so. I direct you to Richard Dawkins' God
Delusion for the rest of the Atheist story. For now though I believe
that if Theists are to mount an effective attack against Atheism it is
the concept of objective reality and the axiom "Reality is real" where
they should start. If you can erode away the fundamentals upon which
Atheists draw their conclusions the rest should just crumble away.
Now that we understand the Atheist side a little better let us move on
to what I think of as the great Theist blunder. When engaged in a
heated debate or grasping for a way to bridge Theism with Atheism
Theists will often use Atheist tactics to support their position.
Such as using science to prove that certain events in the Bible did or
could have happened. Unfortunately when your true belief is not based
on objective evidence but on a sense of self-evidence, an intuitive
knowing of the truth so to speak, it becomes contradictory to try and
support it using the very thing one claims to not need for believing
in the first place. So I say this; Theists should own their faith!
If you believe in a god you shouldn't require objective evidence to
support it nor should you use it in your arguments. If you use
objective evidence to support your Theist belief then you DO NOT have
faith. So, when other people use objective evidence to contradict
your position you should just remind them that since your belief does
not require objective evidence to support it they shouldn't waste
their time trying to use objective evidence to disprove it. Do not
let Atheists intimidate you into a de-facto admittal of defeat by
forgoing your faith and using evidence to support it.
So the next time you engage an Atheist in a lively discussion
regarding religion and Theism remember to attack their core view point
that reality is real and when they try to use their science to blast
your beliefs just remind them that science and objective reality don't
apply to you. Surely they'll see the logical contradiction and give
over their attempts at destroying your faith, right?
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
02 Mar 2007 09:02:18 PM |
|
|
"ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEconGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172886916.474500.34750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
This is a work in progress. I am publishing it here to see if I can
garner some good critical feed back. Please understand that I am not
nor do I claim to be an expert on Atheism or Theism and that my
viewpoints and opinions are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily
represent any Atheist or Theist groups at large. Thank You.
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears. It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position. To
say this another way; if either side were willing or able to
incorporate the others argument then there would suddenly be no
argument because it is that very incorporation of ideas which each
side is truly striving to achieve.
But an argument only works if both sides adhere to logic. If one side does
not adhere to logic, then they're either offering fallacious arguments, or
ignoring valid ones.
Guess which side commonly does that.
For example; Theists cannot use
objective evidence to support their faith because if they do it ceases
to be faith. They cannot hold two contradictory positions
simultaneously; one must go. The same can be said for Atheists
regarding objective reality.
No. Both sides agree there is an objective reality. That is not a point of
contention. It only comes into play when one side attempts to retreat to
solipsism.
Guess which side commonly does that.
The question for Theists then becomes,
"How do I argue against Atheism?" While I cannot make the argument
for you I think we can critically analyse the Atheist position, and
from it better understand where Theist arguments should be directed.
We will also examine the most common pitfall that Theists fall into
when debating Atheists.
Lacking evidence is usually the big blunder.
Atheists at their core believe in an objective reality.
No. The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods.
Atheists are free to believe in anything they like, unicorns, leprechauns,
the matrix, etc. Just not gods.
To best
understand this we turn to a useful logic tool known as an axiom. An
axiom is a proposition assumed without proof for the sake of studying
the consequences that follow from it. In this case the Atheist axiom
is "Reality is real". In fact we can go further and say that reality
is just a set of attributes and rules that have been repeatedly
observed. And that real means that those observed attributes and
rules operate without being broken, but when they are we update our
knowledge of "Reality" to include these new data. For instance; I and
a multitude of scientists have gathered a great mountain of data
regarding the movement of Widgets through a vacuum. We know that
Widgets take up space and have mass. We say we "know" this because we
have independently observed this and performed a variety of tests that
show this all of these observations are repeatable and have been
repeated a great number of times. One of the things we know is that
when traveling through a vacuum Widgets do NOT turn into chocolate
frosting. Widgets turning into to chocolate frosting is not REAL.
The rules we have observed the Widgets follow do not lead us to
believe that this would ever happen, ever. If someone was to ever ask
me if a Widget could turn into chocolate frosting while traveling
through a vacuum I would say, "No". What I would really be saying
is, "Based on the evidence we have gathered so far, which is a large
amount by the way, I would have to say that the probability of a
Widget turning into chocolate frosting while traveling through a
vacuum is so improbable that there could have been billions of Widgets
flying through space (a vacuum) since the beginning of time and not
one of them would have ever turned into chocolate frosting. So while
I am not saying it is impossible for it to happen I and my colleagues
would never base any action or assumption on the absurdly improbable
hope that a Widget flying through a vacuum would turn into chocolate
frosting." This is what reality and real mean to Atheists.
This is all very interesting, I'm sure, but utterly irrelevant since it is
based on the incorrect premise that atheists are all realists, or
materialists, or what have you.
They're not. The only thing they all share is a skeptical position regarding
god claims.
While I could write a whole book using the above argument as a spring
board for the entire Atheist argument another and much smarter man
than I has already done so. I direct you to Richard Dawkins' God
Delusion for the rest of the Atheist story. For now though I believe
that if Theists are to mount an effective attack against Atheism it is
the concept of objective reality and the axiom "Reality is real" where
they should start. If you can erode away the fundamentals upon which
Atheists draw their conclusions the rest should just crumble away.
Even with your retreat to solipsism, atheists will still be under no
obligation to agree with your god claims. Argument from ignorance is still
an argument from ignorance, and still a fallacy.
Now that we understand the Atheist side a little better let us move on
to what I think of as the great Theist blunder.
I think we can dismiss the rest since you seem unfamiliar with the atheist
position.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScopeDopeUSAF" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
02 Mar 2007 10:26:41 PM |
|
|
On Mar 2, 8:02 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEcon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172886916.474500.34750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
This is a work in progress. I am publishing it here to see if I can
garner some good critical feed back. Please understand that I am not
nor do I claim to be an expert on Atheism or Theism and that my
viewpoints and opinions are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily
represent any Atheist or Theist groups at large. Thank You.
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears. It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position. To
say this another way; if either side were willing or able to
incorporate the others argument then there would suddenly be no
argument because it is that very incorporation of ideas which each
side is truly striving to achieve.
But an argument only works if both sides adhere to logic. If one side does
not adhere to logic, then they're either offering fallacious arguments, or
ignoring valid ones.
Guess which side commonly does that.
I suppose this is a matter of semantics really. I am calling faith
based claims presented by Theists to be "arguments" whether they are
based on logic or not.
For example; Theists cannot use
objective evidence to support their faith because if they do it ceases
to be faith. They cannot hold two contradictory positions
simultaneously; one must go. The same can be said for Atheists
regarding objective reality.
No. Both sides agree there is an objective reality. That is not a point of
contention. It only comes into play when one side attempts to retreat to
solipsism.
Guess which side commonly does that.
Whether both sides agree that there is an objective reality or not
irrelavent to my position. I am simply saying that faith claims do
not require an objective reality or objective evidence for support.
The same is true evidence based claims, those who use them would never
use faith claims to support them. All the rest is outside the scope
of this particular argument.
The question for Theists then becomes,
"How do I argue against Atheism?" While I cannot make the argument
for you I think we can critically analyse the Atheist position, and
from it better understand where Theist arguments should be directed.
We will also examine the most common pitfall that Theists fall into
when debating Atheists.
Lacking evidence is usually the big blunder.
Not sure what point you are addressing here.
Atheists at their core believe in an objective reality.
No. The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods.
Atheists are free to believe in anything they like, unicorns, leprechauns,
the matrix, etc. Just not gods.
Fair enough. I guess I should consider the the Atheists who believe
in fairies and leprechauns too. They obviously do not prescribe to an
objective reality. How then should I refer to "Objective Reality
Atheists"?
To best
understand this we turn to a useful logic tool known as an axiom. An
axiom is a proposition assumed without proof for the sake of studying
the consequences that follow from it. In this case the Atheist axiom
is "Reality is real". In fact we can go further and say that reality
is just a set of attributes and rules that have been repeatedly
observed. And that real means that those observed attributes and
rules operate without being broken, but when they are we update our
knowledge of "Reality" to include these new data. For instance; I and
a multitude of scientists have gathered a great mountain of data
regarding the movement of Widgets through a vacuum. We know that
Widgets take up space and have mass. We say we "know" this because we
have independently observed this and performed a variety of tests that
show this all of these observations are repeatable and have been
repeated a great number of times. One of the things we know is that
when traveling through a vacuum Widgets do NOT turn into chocolate
frosting. Widgets turning into to chocolate frosting is not REAL.
The rules we have observed the Widgets follow do not lead us to
believe that this would ever happen, ever. If someone was to ever ask
me if a Widget could turn into chocolate frosting while traveling
through a vacuum I would say, "No". What I would really be saying
is, "Based on the evidence we have gathered so far, which is a large
amount by the way, I would have to say that the probability of a
Widget turning into chocolate frosting while traveling through a
vacuum is so improbable that there could have been billions of Widgets
flying through space (a vacuum) since the beginning of time and not
one of them would have ever turned into chocolate frosting. So while
I am not saying it is impossible for it to happen I and my colleagues
would never base any action or assumption on the absurdly improbable
hope that a Widget flying through a vacuum would turn into chocolate
frosting." This is what reality and real mean to Atheists.
This is all very interesting, I'm sure, but utterly irrelevant since it is
based on the incorrect premise that atheists are all realists, or
materialists, or what have you.
They're not. The only thing they all share is a skeptical position regarding
god claims.
Again I agree...see my remark above.
While I could write a whole book using the above argument as a spring
board for the entire Atheist argument another and much smarter man
than I has already done so. I direct you to Richard Dawkins' God
Delusion for the rest of the Atheist story. For now though I believe
that if Theists are to mount an effective attack against Atheism it is
the concept of objective reality and the axiom "Reality is real" where
they should start. If you can erode away the fundamentals upon which
Atheists draw their conclusions the rest should just crumble away.
Even with your retreat to solipsism, atheists will still be under no
obligation to agree with your god claims. Argument from ignorance is still
an argument from ignorance, and still a fallacy.
What God claims have I made?
Now that we understand the Atheist side a little better let us move on
to what I think of as the great Theist blunder.
I think we can dismiss the rest since you seem unfamiliar with the atheist
position.
Where would you direct me then to better understand the Atheist
position sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 03:59:04 AM |
|
|
"ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEconGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172896001.921743.35590@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 2, 8:02 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEcon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172886916.474500.34750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
(snip)> Where would you direct me then to better understand the Atheist
position sir?
You're here, why don't you ask us instead of telling us what the atheist
position is?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 05:21:20 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in alt.atheism
ScopeDopeUSAF <ASUEconGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
Where would you direct me then to better understand the Atheist
position sir?
You're here, why don't you ask us instead of telling us what the atheist
position is?
Good idea.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 05:11:59 AM |
|
|
ScopeDopeUSAF <ASUEconGuy@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
I am simply saying that faith claims do not require an objective reality
or objective evidence for support.
The faith claims are made by people with material brains, which are
part of objective reality, so I'd say they do require objective
reality before they can make any claims at all.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
05 Mar 2007 10:59:49 AM |
|
|
"ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEconGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172886916.474500.34750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
This is a work in progress. I am publishing it here to see if I can
garner some good critical feed back. Please understand that I am not
nor do I claim to be an expert on Atheism or Theism and that my
viewpoints and opinions are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily
represent any Atheist or Theist groups at large. Thank You.
Is Mr. Morris nym-shifting?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 04:30:24 AM |
|
|
An Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:55:16 -0800, ScopeDopeUSAF schreibt:
Theists cannot use
objective evidence to support their faith because if they do it ceases
to be faith. They cannot hold two contradictory positions
simultaneously; one must go. The same can be said for Atheists
regarding objective reality.
Complete nonsense. In most aspects of their lives theists are quite
rational. I think you will also find that their behavior is not
consistent with their delusion. Were they to really believe what they say
they believe, they would be a lot less obnoxious.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
02 Mar 2007 10:08:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1172886916.474500.34750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
ASUEconGuy@gmail.com says...
For example; Theists cannot use
objective evidence to support their faith because if they do it ceases
to be faith.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether they are justified in
asserting this faith to begin with as a reasonable method of knowing.
There doesn't appear to be any good reason to accept that belief in
something with no evidence is a reliable way of knowing about the world.
You will also notice that I just mentioned reasons and not merely
objective evidence. Logical arguments are also something which atheists
use quite effectively to undermine many theist positions. Therefore a
focus on attacking objective reality will not be sufficient, on the part
of theists, address atheist objections.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
02 Mar 2007 08:26:58 PM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2007 17:55:16 -0800, "ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEconGuy@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1172886916.474500.34750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
This is a work in progress. I am publishing it here to see if I can
garner some good critical feed back. Please understand that I am not
nor do I claim to be an expert on Atheism or Theism and that my
viewpoints and opinions are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily
represent any Atheist or Theist groups at large. Thank You.
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears.
Got any research to back that up?
I think it is quite wrong.
It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position.
Hold it there bud!
I am an atheist, and am more than willing to change my mind.
All it takes is evidence.
I'd be happy to change it. Being a scientist, I change my point of
view a lot, based on evidence.
Even some views that I formerly held with some passion.
Most Theists are on record as *boasting* that they would not change
their minds no matter how much evidence was presented to them!
There is only one close-minded lot there.
Your term "unwillingness" is quite wrong when applied to most
atheists, to the point of libel.
Change that first, and then I may address your other points.
:
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScopeDopeUSAF" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
02 Mar 2007 09:43:47 PM |
|
|
On Mar 2, 7:26 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2007 17:55:16 -0800, "ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEcon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1172886916.474500.34...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears.
Got any research to back that up?
I think it is quite wrong.
Are you saying that Atheists do consider faith claims and attempt to
incorporate them the just as they would claims based on objectively
collected evidence? Becuase I'm saying that Atheists don't listen to
faith claims because they fundamentally lack what they require to
enter into reasonable discourse...which is evidence. The same is true
of Theists. There claims do not require evidence and so when Atheists
try to use evidence to discredit faith based claims Theists simply
reply that their claims don not require evidence to support them so
how could evidence discredit them?
It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position.
Hold it there bud!
I am an atheist, and am more than willing to change my mind.
All it takes is evidence.
I'd be happy to change it. Being a scientist, I change my point of
view a lot, based on evidence.
Even some views that I formerly held with some passion.
Most Theists are on record as *boasting* that they would not change
their minds no matter how much evidence was presented to them!
There is only one close-minded lot there.
Your term "unwillingness" is quite wrong when applied to most
atheists, to the point of libel.
Change that first, and then I may address your other points.
Again, I am not saying you are unwilling to change your mind. If you
read what I write carefully you will see that I am saying that faith
claims (Used by Theists) and evidence based claims (Used by Atheists)
are simply incompatible. And that neither side seems to see this or
is willing to admit it because they continue to go round and round
offering claims to each other that neither side is willing to accept.
That is what this quote means -
" It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
02 Mar 2007 10:10:21 PM |
|
|
"ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEconGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172893427.555312.178290@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Again, I am not saying you are unwilling to change your mind. If you
read what I write carefully you will see that I am saying that faith
claims (Used by Theists) and evidence based claims (Used by Atheists)
are simply incompatible.
Correct! The former is complete ***** and should be given no
consideration. Prayers and a nickel won't even get you a cup of coffee
anymolre
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
02 Mar 2007 10:21:20 PM |
|
|
In article <1172893427.555312.178290@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
ASUEconGuy@gmail.com says...
The same is true
of Theists. There claims do not require evidence
Actually theist claims do require evidence despite their attempt to
assert that it is not necessary. Theists try to invent a special
pleading which says, "I get to make a claim with no evidence because part
of my belief system is that I dont' need evidence." At best they base
this on the notion that they could be right, even if they can't produce
any evidence to justify it. In fact, they usually maintain that they
could be right, even if the evidence appears to contradict their
position. Unfortunately, it's not enough to say that they "could" be
right, because we don't know that their position is even logically
coherent. Secondly, there is usually evidence to support something that
is true, so lack of evidence does become an increasing liability,
especially when one fanatically asserts a belief. Finally, if you can't
justify a belief then it's hard to accept that this belief really
matters, or at least that a person should be culpable for not believing
something for which there was no evidence. Those are but a few of the
myriad problems with the faith position.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 01:24:26 AM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2007 19:43:47 -0800, "ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEconGuy@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1172893427.555312.178290@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 2, 7:26 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2007 17:55:16 -0800, "ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEcon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1172886916.474500.34...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears.
Got any research to back that up?
I think it is quite wrong.
Are you saying that Atheists do consider faith claims and attempt to
incorporate them the just as they would claims based on objectively
collected evidence? Becuase I'm saying that Atheists don't listen to
faith claims because they fundamentally lack what they require to
enter into reasonable discourse...which is evidence.
That does not mean they fall on deaf ears.
It means they fall at the first hurdle!
Your terminology REALLY needs work.
The same is true
of Theists. There claims do not require evidence and so when Atheists
try to use evidence to discredit faith based claims Theists simply
reply that their claims don not require evidence to support them so
how could evidence discredit them?
What has that got to do with "fall upon deaf ears"?
I listen to their claims.
Most theists claim to have evidence, and most of them attempt to
provide same.
Their claims are scientifically testable.
Most other atheists that I know "listen" to their claims, and assess
them on the basis of forensis.
It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position.
Hold it there bud!
I am an atheist, and am more than willing to change my mind.
All it takes is evidence.
I'd be happy to change it. Being a scientist, I change my point of
view a lot, based on evidence.
Even some views that I formerly held with some passion.
Most Theists are on record as *boasting* that they would not change
their minds no matter how much evidence was presented to them!
There is only one close-minded lot there.
Your term "unwillingness" is quite wrong when applied to most
atheists, to the point of libel.
Change that first, and then I may address your other points.
Again, I am not saying you are unwilling to change your mind. If you
No, you are saying, (in your sweeping generalization), that I am deaf
to "most" theists' arguments!!
Whereas this is most demonstrably NOT true.
If it was, I would not be the bible scholar that I am.
If you didn't mean that, you should not have said it outright!
read what I write carefully you will see that I am saying that faith
claims (Used by Theists) and evidence based claims (Used by Atheists)
are simply incompatible.
I read it very carefully.
I stand by my comments.
You made a demonstrably and egregiously false assertion.
I suggest to you that the fault does not lie with m English
comprehension.
And that neither side seems to see this or
is willing to admit it because they continue to go round and round
offering claims to each other that neither side is willing to accept.
Wrong again.
I accept many of their claims.
That is what this quote means -
" It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position."
Again, that most certainly DOES NOT apply to this atheist, nor many
others that I know of.
It is a sweeping generalization that is just plain wrong!
Not a propitious start, I feel.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 10:55:23 AM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2007 19:43:47 -0800, "ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEconGuy@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mar 2, 7:26 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2007 17:55:16 -0800, "ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEcon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1172886916.474500.34...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears.
Got any research to back that up?
I think it is quite wrong.
Are you saying that Atheists do consider faith claims and attempt to
incorporate them the just as they would claims based on objectively
collected evidence?
Have you a definition for "faith claim" that might lead one to some
reason for considering them credible?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
02 Mar 2007 08:59:26 PM |
|
|
On Mar 2, 5:55 pm, "ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears. It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position.
Incorrect. I will readily admit to the existence of a deity when
there is good reason to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
04 Mar 2007 08:50:02 PM |
|
|
On Mar 2, 5:55 pm, "ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears. It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position.
Incorrect. I will readily admit to the existence of a deity when
there is good reason to.
I am not trying to say that you wouldn't. I am saying, and in fact
you have just said, that Atheists will not be swayed by claims of
faith becuase those very claims exist without evidence and it is
evidence that Atheists require before entering into any resonable
discussion about anything.
Faith claims = No evidence
Atheists require evidence.
I am open to a purely rational argument, as well as an evidentiary
one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
02 Mar 2007 11:14:57 PM |
|
|
On Mar 2, 7:55 pm, "ScopeDopeUSAF" <ASUEcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a work in progress. I am publishing it here to see if I can
garner some good critical feed back. Please understand that I am not
nor do I claim to be an expert on Atheism or Theism and that my
viewpoints and opinions are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily
represent any Atheist or Theist groups at large. Thank You.
Likewise, my views are mine alone too.
It is unfortunate to say, but most arguments presented by Theists AND
Atheists alike fall upon deaf ears.
That seems to be the case, but I'm beginning to think that it's
because we're all talking about different things. We're arguing but
not connecting.
It is the unwillingness of either
side to admit that their point of view, and thus the fundamentals of
their arguments, are incompatible with the other sides position.
I think that individuals interested in figuring out the truth rather
than interested in "winning" the debate would be willing to admit that
their point of view is incompatible with the other side's position.
From my point of view, it is not so much that atheists are "wrong" as
that they view the universe fundamentally differently than I do. If I
accepted their initial premises, I would probably agree with their
conclusions.
I think the question is something like a different world-view of the
supernatural. I'm working through this, too. I think atheists
generally believe that the same rules of physics and logic should
exist in all realms, where theists believe that the rules of physics
and logic are fine for the observable universe, but may not work at
all outside that universe. God is outside that universe. If you
don't think there is anything outside that universe, there isn't a
God. God doesn't show up in the physicial universe.
To
say this another way; if either side were willing or able to
incorporate the others argument then there would suddenly be no
argument because it is that very incorporation of ideas which each
side is truly striving to achieve. For example; Theists cannot use
objective evidence to support their faith because if they do it ceases
to be faith. They cannot hold two contradictory positions
simultaneously; one must go. The same can be said for Atheists
regarding objective reality. The question for Theists then becomes,
"How do I argue against Atheism?" While I cannot make the argument
for you I think we can critically analyse the Atheist position, and
from it better understand where Theist arguments should be directed.
We will also examine the most common pitfall that Theists fall into
when debating Atheists.
Atheists at their core believe in an objective reality.
So do I. I just believe in more than that as well.
To best
understand this we turn to a useful logic tool known as an axiom. An
axiom is a proposition assumed without proof for the sake of studying
the consequences that follow from it. In this case the Atheist axiom
is "Reality is real".
I also think reality is real. Most of it anyway. Some of it is
illusion, but most of it is real.
In fact we can go further and say that reality
is just a set of attributes and rules that have been repeatedly
observed. And that real means that those observed attributes and
rules operate without being broken, but when they are we update our
knowledge of "Reality" to include these new data. For instance; I and
a multitude of scientists have gathered a great mountain of data
regarding the movement of Widgets through a vacuum. We know that
Widgets take up space and have mass. We say we "know" this because we
have independently observed this and performed a variety of tests that
show this all of these observations are repeatable and have been
repeated a great number of times. One of the things we know is that
when traveling through a vacuum Widgets do NOT turn into chocolate
frosting. Widgets turning into to chocolate frosting is not REAL.
The rules we have observed the Widgets follow do not lead us to
believe that this would ever happen, ever. If someone was to ever ask
me if a Widget could turn into chocolate frosting while traveling
through a vacuum I would say, "No". What I would really be saying
is, "Based on the evidence we have gathered so far, which is a large
amount by the way, I would have to say that the probability of a
Widget turning into chocolate frosting while traveling through a
vacuum is so improbable that there could have been billions of Widgets
flying through space (a vacuum) since the beginning of time and not
one of them would have ever turned into chocolate frosting. So while
I am not saying it is impossible for it to happen I and my colleagues
would never base any action or assumption on the absurdly improbable
hope that a Widget flying through a vacuum would turn into chocolate
frosting." This is what reality and real mean to Atheists.
While I could write a whole book using the above argument as a spring
board for the entire Atheist argument another and much smarter man
than I has already done so. I direct you to Richard Dawkins' God
Delusion for the rest of the Atheist story. For now though I believe
that if Theists are to mount an effective attack against Atheism it is
the concept of objective reality and the axiom "Reality is real" where
they should start. If you can erode away the fundamentals upon which
Atheists draw their conclusions the rest should just crumble away.
Now that we understand the Atheist side a little better let us move on
to what I think of as the great Theist blunder. When engaged in a
heated debate or grasping for a way to bridge Theism with Atheism
Theists will often use Atheist tactics to support their position.
Such as using science to prove that certain events in the Bible did or
could have happened.
This is very problematic in that few of the most important events in
scripture are subject to scientific proof. Indeed, some are most
remarkable because they are miraculous, in other words inconsistent
with what would be expected from science.
Unfortunately when your true belief is not based
on objective evidence but on a sense of self-evidence, an intuitive
knowing of the truth so to speak, it becomes contradictory to try and
support it using the very thing one claims to not need for believing
in the first place. So I say this; Theists should own their faith!
If you believe in a god you shouldn't require objective evidence to
support it nor should you use it in your arguments.
I try not to.
If you use
objective evidence to support your Theist belief then you DO NOT have
faith. So, when other people use objective evidence to contradict
your position you should just remind them that since your belief does
not require objective evidence to support it they shouldn't waste
their time trying to use objective evidence to disprove it. Do not
let Atheists intimidate you into a de-facto admittal of defeat by
forgoing your faith and using evidence to support it.
So the next time you engage an Atheist in a lively discussion
regarding religion and Theism remember to attack their core view point
that reality is real and when they try to use their science to blast
your beliefs just remind them that science and objective reality don't
apply to you. Surely they'll see the logical contradiction and give
over their attempts at destroying your faith, right?
The problem is that I don't think reality is necessarily unreal.
Science and objective reality do apply to me, it's just that they're
not the only things that apply to me.
I do think that there's a huge disconnect in many of the discussions
on this newsgroup. We're just talking over each other.
Pete
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 05:32:15 AM |
|
|
wrote in alt.atheism
I think the question is something like a different world-view of the
supernatural. I'm working through this, too. I think atheists
generally believe that the same rules of physics and logic should
exist in all realms, where theists believe that the rules of physics
and logic are fine for the observable universe, but may not work at
all outside that universe.
Personally, I believe that anything that can interact with anything
else in our universe must abide by the same physical laws.
God is outside that universe. If you don't think there is anything
outside that universe, there isn't a God.
This kind of blows away the common theistic idea that their god is
omnipresent, doesn't it? How can something be omnipresent but not be
part of our universe?
God doesn't show up in the physicial universe.
Except of course when he impregnates an earth woman to create
a baby who later is called God incarnate.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 11:59:32 AM |
|
|
On Mar 3, 5:32 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
peterobinson72...@gmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
I think the question is something like a different world-view of the
supernatural. I'm working through this, too. I think atheists
generally believe that the same rules of physics and logic should
exist in all realms, where theists believe that the rules of physics
and logic are fine for the observable universe, but may not work at
all outside that universe.
Personally, I believe that anything that can interact with anything
else in our universe must abide by the same physical laws.
Personally, I don't. Just because everything we've observed so far
either does abide by the same physical laws or we don't know whether
they abide by the same physical laws or not does not mean that there's
not something that does not abide by the same physical laws.
God is outside that universe. If you don't think there is anything
outside that universe, there isn't a God.
This kind of blows away the common theistic idea that their god is
omnipresent, doesn't it? How can something be omnipresent but not be
part of our universe?
It depends on what you mean by present. If you mean sitting in this
chair next to me, plainly God is not present. If you mean that in
some way we can't begin to understand he's conscious of everything
that is going on, sure. He's "present." In the conventional meaning
of "present," though, God is not present anywhere in the universe.
God doesn't show up in the physicial universe.
Except of course when he impregnates an earth woman to create
a baby who later is called God incarnate.
Okay, maybe that once.
--
Elroy Williswww.elroysemporium.com
Pete
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
04 Mar 2007 07:10:30 AM |
|
|
wrote in alt.atheism
On Mar 3, 5:32 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
peterobinson72...@gmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
I think the question is something like a different world-view of the
supernatural. I'm working through this, too. I think atheists
generally believe that the same rules of physics and logic should
exist in all realms, where theists believe that the rules of physics
and logic are fine for the observable universe, but may not work at
all outside that universe.
Personally, I believe that anything that can interact with anything
else in our universe must abide by the same physical laws.
Personally, I don't. Just because everything we've observed so far
either does abide by the same physical laws or we don't know whether
they abide by the same physical laws or not does not mean that there's
not something that does not abide by the same physical laws.
Sounds like you WANT to believe in something supernatural to me.
Why not consider the supernatural as the "unexplained for now"
instead of resorting to ancient myths to explain things you don't know
or understand?
God is outside that universe. If you don't think there is anything
outside that universe, there isn't a God.
This kind of blows away the common theistic idea that their god is
omnipresent, doesn't it? How can something be omnipresent but
not be part of our universe?
It depends on what you mean by present. If you mean sitting in this
chair next to me, plainly God is not present.
Obviously.
If you mean that in some way we can't begin to understand he's
conscious of everything that is going on, sure. He's "present."
He's got a peephole into our universe, from outside of it? He must
have more than one peephole if he can see people on opposite sides of
our planet at the same time, eh?
In the conventional meaning of "present," though, God is not present
anywhere in the universe.
Except in the brains of the believers... Make-believe, iow, just like
a child's imaginary friend.
God doesn't show up in the physicial universe.
Except of course when he impregnates an earth woman to create
a baby who later is called God incarnate.
Okay, maybe that once.
Nah, more than that. Some of the Greek gods impregnated earth women
just like Bible god was supposed to have done. Zeus, for example.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
04 Mar 2007 10:32:08 PM |
|
|
On Mar 4, 7:10 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
peterobinson72...@gmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
On Mar 3, 5:32 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
peterobinson72...@gmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
I think the question is something like a different world-view of the
supernatural. I'm working through this, too. I think atheists
generally believe that the same rules of physics and logic should
exist in all realms, where theists believe that the rules of physics
and logic are fine for the observable universe, but may not work at
all outside that universe.
Personally, I believe that anything that can interact with anything
else in our universe must abide by the same physical laws.
Personally, I don't. Just because everything we've observed so far
either does abide by the same physical laws or we don't know whether
they abide by the same physical laws or not does not mean that there's
not something that does not abide by the same physical laws.
Sounds like you WANT to believe in something supernatural to me.
Why not consider the supernatural as the "unexplained for now"
instead of resorting to ancient myths to explain things you don't know
or understand?
More like I HAPPEN to believe in something supernatural. I'm not sure
what God is like, so certainly he is "unexplained for now." Maybe I
am somehow "resorting to ancient myths," but I don't think so. I'm
forced to admit that there are a lot of things I don't know or
understand, as much as I hate it. I'd rather be omniscient and
whatever the word is for "capable of comprehending everything," but
I'm not.
God is outside that universe. If you don't think there is anything
outside that universe, there isn't a God.
This kind of blows away the common theistic idea that their god is
omnipresent, doesn't it? How can something be omnipresent but
not be part of our universe?
It depends on what you mean by present. If you mean sitting in this
chair next to me, plainly God is not present.
Obviously.
If you mean that in some way we can't begin to understand he's
conscious of everything that is going on, sure. He's "present."
He's got a peephole into our universe, from outside of it? He must
have more than one peephole if he can see people on opposite sides of
our planet at the same time, eh?
Come on. It's easy how he can see people on opposite sides of the
planet at the same time. He uses mirrors! Seriously, I'm not sure
exactly how it works. I seriously doubt it involves "seeing" or
"hearing" or any of the senses we're used to.
In the conventional meaning of "present," though, God is not present
anywhere in the universe.
Except in the brains of the believers... Make-believe, iow, just like
a child's imaginary friend.
In the conventional meaning of present, those examples are not
present.
God doesn't show up in the physicial universe.
Except of course when he impregnates an earth woman to create
a baby who later is called God incarnate.
Okay, maybe that once.
Nah, more than that. Some of the Greek gods impregnated earth women
just like Bible god was supposed to have done. Zeus, for example.
Okay, except for all the times gods have impregnated earth women to
father sons who have later been called gods. . . . . . Oh, I
shouldn't be such a smart-*****. The virgin birth stories should not be
taken literally. They're highly improbable. They were servicable in
a different time, but now knowing what we know about DNA and human
reproduction, the virgin birth stories should be seen as we should see
the creation story at the beginning of Genesis. It's symbolic and
metaphorical, not a historical account.
--
Elroy Williswww.elroysemporium.com
Pete
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
05 Mar 2007 07:44:32 AM |
|
|
wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
peterobinson72...@gmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
On Mar 3, 5:32 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
Personally, I believe that anything that can interact with anything
else in our universe must abide by the same physical laws.
Personally, I don't. Just because everything we've observed so far
either does abide by the same physical laws or we don't know whether
they abide by the same physical laws or not does not mean that there's
not something that does not abide by the same physical laws.
Sounds like you WANT to believe in something supernatural to me.
Why not consider the supernatural as the "unexplained for now"
instead of resorting to ancient myths to explain things you don't know
or understand?
More like I HAPPEN to believe in something supernatural. I'm not sure
what God is like, so certainly he is "unexplained for now." Maybe I
am somehow "resorting to ancient myths," but I don't think so. I'm
forced to admit that there are a lot of things I don't know or
understand, as much as I hate it. I'd rather be omniscient and
whatever the word is for "capable of comprehending everything," but
I'm not.
I find it strange that some people want to worship the unknown, like
it's a god. It's like worshipping unpredictability to me, and I just
don't see the point in that.
If you mean that in some way we can't begin to understand he's
conscious of everything that is going on, sure. He's "present."
He's got a peephole into our universe, from outside of it? He must
have more than one peephole if he can see people on opposite sides of
our planet at the same time, eh?
Come on. It's easy how he can see people on opposite sides of the
planet at the same time. He uses mirrors!
Where are they? Yes, I know you were just joking. :)
Seriously, I'm not sure exactly how it works.
Maybe it doesn't work at all, and it's just a bogus idea? That's what
I think.
I seriously doubt it involves "seeing" or "hearing" or any of the senses
we're used to.
Maybe it doesn't involve anything at all? Who first taught you that
idea anyway, can you remember for sure?
[...] the virgin birth stories should be seen as we should see
the creation story at the beginning of Genesis. It's symbolic and
metaphorical, not a historical account.
Why couldn't they be inaccurate historical accounts that ancient
people believed were actually true during their lifetimes? That's how
I consider them, personally.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
05 Mar 2007 07:44:16 PM |
|
|
On Mar 5, 7:44 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
peterobinson72...@gmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
peterobinson72...@gmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
On Mar 3, 5:32 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
Personally, I believe that anything that can interact with anything
else in our universe must abide by the same physical laws.
Personally, I don't. Just because everything we've observed so far
either does abide by the same physical laws or we don't know whether
they abide by the same physical laws or not does not mean that there's
not something that does not abide by the same physical laws.
Sounds like you WANT to believe in something supernatural to me.
Why not consider the supernatural as the "unexplained for now"
instead of resorting to ancient myths to explain things you don't know
or understand?
More like I HAPPEN to believe in something supernatural. I'm not sure
what God is like, so certainly he is "unexplained for now." Maybe I
am somehow "resorting to ancient myths," but I don't think so. I'm
forced to admit that there are a lot of things I don't know or
understand, as much as I hate it. I'd rather be omniscient and
whatever the word is for "capable of comprehending everything," but
I'm not.
I find it strange that some people want to worship the unknown, like
it's a god. It's like worshipping unpredictability to me, and I just
don't see the point in that.
I guess it depends on what you mean by worship.
If you mean that in some way we can't begin to understand he's
conscious of everything that is going on, sure. He's "present."
He's got a peephole into our universe, from outside of it? He must
have more than one peephole if he can see people on opposite sides of
our planet at the same time, eh?
Come on. It's easy how he can see people on opposite sides of the
planet at the same time. He uses mirrors!
Where are they? Yes, I know you were just joking. :)
There are three in my bathroom.
Seriously, I'm not sure exactly how it works.
Maybe it doesn't work at all, and it's just a bogus idea? That's what
I think.
I seriously doubt it involves "seeing" or "hearing" or any of the senses
we're used to.
Maybe it doesn't involve anything at all? Who first taught you that
idea anyway, can you remember for sure?
No. I do not remember. Maybe I made it up myself. When I was being
taught Christianity as a kid I was taught that God was everywhere, so
there was no need for mirrors or extra sensory perception, so it
wasn't there.
[...] the virgin birth stories should be seen as we should see
the creation story at the beginning of Genesis. It's symbolic and
metaphorical, not a historical account.
Why couldn't they be inaccurate historical accounts that ancient
people believed were actually true during their lifetimes? That's how
I consider them, personally.
I guess that's possible. I don't know.
--
Elroy Williswww.elroysemporium.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Pete
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 04:47:57 AM |
|
|
An Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:14:57 -0800, peterobinson72201 schreibt:
If you
don't think there is anything outside that universe, there isn't a
God. God doesn't show up in the physicial universe.
What a complete load of crap. Most theists believe god as part of the
physical universe. The only people I've met who argue that god is outside
of the universe are closet atheists who are trying to rationalize their
disbelief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 11:55:48 AM |
|
|
On Mar 3, 4:47 am, Emmanual Kann <n...@keinspam.invalid> wrote:
An Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:14:57 -0800, peterobinson72201 schreibt:
If you
don't think there is anything outside that universe, there isn't a
God. God doesn't show up in the physicial universe.
What a complete load of crap. Most theists believe god as part of the
physical universe. The only people I've met who argue that god is outside
of the universe are closet atheists who are trying to rationalize their
disbelief.
Emmanuel Kann:
This is far from a complete load of crap. I am capable of generating
a complete load of crap, and this isn't one.
I'd love for there to be evidence of God in the universe. That'd make
it very easy. But honestly, where is it? I don't see it. I think
you guys are basically right about the lack of evidence of God in the
universe. You can't reason from complexity. There's no particular
reason a God is either more or less likely because of observable
complexity. Sure the universe is beautiful, but until you can show me
a bunch of universes, some created by God, some not, I can't say
whether beauty is an expected characteristic of a God-created
universe.
Outside the universe, as an initial creative force that started the
whole thing going, I think there is a God. I guess that's what makes
me a theist.
Do not think I'm a closet atheist. Some of the genuine atheists on
this board would get very ill if they were to think I was among their
number.
Pete
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 08:54:18 AM |
|
|
Surely they'll see the logical contradiction and give over their
attempts at destroying your faith, right?
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
"attempts at destroying your faith"
or
attempts at destroying your lack of faith?
V:
We should never find happiness in destroying others belief systems.
When I posted this before an atheist brought up the Nazis and should
we just let the Nazis belief systems flourish?
Whatever I write about has to be balanced with practicality and some
wisdom. When I write "We should never find happiness in destroying
others belief systems." I am mainly referring the ongoing battles that
evolve between theists and atheists or theists and other theists.
These groups take pride in destroying others belief or lack of belief
systems many a time.
As far as Nazis and the like?
My words do not mean we have to not be concerned with danger to our
well being by another, but, it also reminds us we will never be at
peace by fostering hatred for another. Sure protect yourself, but find
no happiness in killing other living beings even if the killing is out
of self defense, if you wish to be at peace within.
Tearing others down appeals to ones ego and pride, but so did
torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a
different way to find self worth. As you instill seeds of peace within
others you plant the same seeds and water these seeds within you as
well. As you give so you receive.
Is that from the bible or karma?
No, it is just universal law.
Do we like to be beaten down?
Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
as others peace.
It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
to destroy it.
When I posted this earlier, another atheist piped to accuse me of
hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick it up to eat
it.
Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.
Yes, I can destroy a potato by eating it and still be at peace.
But I cannot destroy my neighbors entire crop of potatoes to bankrupt
him and still be at peace.
What about if I only destroy one of my neighbors potatoes to hurt him?
The key here is whether I act out of peace or out of a need to harm.
The defining question is: are we promoting peace or destroying peace
with our actions?
When we invest excessive time and energies in acquiring or building
attachments these attachments become veritable extensions of our being
and come to define us for ourselves as well as define who we are for
others. When these attachments take on this role we become susceptible
to pain via these extensions. If the person, place, thing or idea we
are attached to gets rebuked it is a personal rebuke on us, if they
get damaged or defaced so goes the defacement and damage to our very
being.
It is hard to become full detached to ideas, for if we did we would be
like a feather floating wherever the wind blew us and would pick up
any old idea with no firm grounding of what we perceive as right or
wrong. But, we can practice being open minded and look at ideas
without prejudice that we instinctively hit ideas with that does not
emanate from within our mind. We can take that first step in the
opposite direction that we have been heading in for so long by
learning to judge other less.
We especially do this with everyone we meet...they get categorized
with better or lesser than me type of thinking. When we limit
prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And realize that
"All deities reside within the human breast," as Blake wrote and try
to show kindness and leniency towards others just as we would like it
bestowed on us by our judges.
When we invest excessive time and energies in acquiring or building
attachments these attachments become veritable extensions of our being
and come to define us for ourselves as well as define who we are for
others. When these attachments take on this role we become susceptible
to pain via these extensions. If the person, place, thing or idea we
are attached to gets rebuked it is a personal rebuke on us, if they
get damaged or defaced so goes the defacement and damage to our very
being.
It is hard to become full detached to ideas, for if we did we would be
like a feather floating wherever the wind blew us and would pick up
any old idea with no firm grounding of what we perceive as right or
wrong. But, we can practice being open minded and look at ideas
without prejudice that we instinctively hit ideas with that does not
emanate from within our mind. We can take that first step in the
opposite direction that we have been heading in for so long by
learning to judge other less.
We especially do this with everyone we meet...they get categorized
with better or lesser than me type of thinking. When we limit
prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And realize that
"All deities reside within the human breast," as Blake wrote and try
to show kindness and leniency towards others just as we would like it
bestowed on us by our judges.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
03 Mar 2007 12:06:18 PM |
|
|
On Mar 3, 8:54 am, "V" <v...@aol.com> wrote:
Surely they'll see the logical contradiction and give over their
attempts at destroying your faith, right?
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
"attempts at destroying your faith"
or
attempts at destroying your lack of faith?
V:
We should never find happiness in destroying others belief systems.
Happiness, no. A sense of accomplishment, maybe. If people are
living their lives according to a flawed belief system, do we not do
good in helping them out of it?
When I posted this before an atheist brought up the Nazis and should
we just let the Nazis belief systems flourish?
Why the HELL are Nazis so important to an analysis of atheism?
Really! Shouldn't this newsgroup be renamed alt.nazis.atheism?
Whatever I write about has to be balanced with practicality and some
wisdom.
You are limiting yourself too much. I seldom consider practicality
and certainly don't bother with wisdom and I do just fine.
When I write "We should never find happiness in destroying
others belief systems." I am mainly referring the ongoing battles that
evolve between theists and atheists or theists and other theists.
These groups take pride in destroying others belief or lack of belief
systems many a time.
No, they just take pride in insulting each other and talking past each
other. Has there ever been an atheist or a theist converted because
of something they read on this newsgroup? Even one?
As far as Nazis and the like?
My words do not mean we have to not be concerned with danger to our
well being by another, but, it also reminds us we will never be at
peace by fostering hatred for another. Sure protect yourself, but find
no happiness in killing other living beings even if the killing is out
of self defense, if you wish to be at peace within.
Tearing others down appeals to ones ego and pride, but so did
torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a
different way to find self worth. As you instill seeds of peace within
others you plant the same seeds and water these seeds within you as
well. As you give so you receive.
Is that from the bible or karma?
No, it is just universal law.
Do we like to be beaten down?
No, that's alt.sex.masochism.
Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
as others peace.
It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
to destroy it.
When I posted this earlier, another atheist piped to accuse me of
hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick it up to eat
it.
Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.
Yes, I can destroy a potato by eating it and still be at peace.
But I cannot destroy my neighbors entire crop of potatoes to bankrupt
him and still be at peace.
What about if I only destroy one of my neighbors potatoes to hurt him?
The key here is whether I act out of peace or out of a need to harm.
The defining question is: are we promoting peace or destroying peace
with our actions?
When we invest excessive time and energies in acquiring or building
attachments these attachments become veritable extensions of our being
and come to define us for ourselves as well as define who we are for
others. When these attachments take on this role we become susceptible
to pain via these extensions. If the person, place, thing or idea we
are attached to gets rebuked it is a personal rebuke on us, if they
get damaged or defaced so goes the defacement and damage to our very
being.
It is hard to become full detached to ideas, for if we did we would be
like a feather floating wherever the wind blew us and would pick up
any old idea with no firm grounding of what we perceive as right or
wrong. But, we can practice being open minded and look at ideas
without prejudice that we instinctively hit ideas with that does not
emanate from within our mind. We can take that first step in the
opposite direction that we have been heading in for so long by
learning to judge other less.
We especially do this with everyone we meet...they get categorized
with better or lesser than me type of thinking. When we limit
prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And realize that
"All deities reside within the human breast," as Blake wrote and try
to show kindness and leniency towards others just as we would like it
bestowed on us by our judges.
When we invest excessive time and energies in acquiring or building
attachments these attachments become veritable extensions of our being
and come to define us for ourselves as well as define who we are for
others. When these attachments take on this role we become susceptible
to pain via these extensions. If the person, place, thing or idea we
are attached to gets rebuked it is a personal rebuke on us, if they
get damaged or defaced so goes the defacement and damage to our very
being.
It is hard to become full detached to ideas, for if we did we would be
like a feather floating wherever the wind blew us and would pick up
any old idea with no firm grounding of what we perceive as right or
wrong. But, we can practice being open minded and look at ideas
without prejudice that we instinctively hit ideas with that does not
emanate from within our mind. We can take that first step in the
opposite direction that we have been heading in for so long by
learning to judge other less.
We especially do this with everyone we meet...they get categorized
with better or lesser than me type of thinking. When we limit
prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And realize that
"All deities reside within the human breast," as Blake wrote and try
to show kindness and leniency towards others just as we would like it
bestowed on us by our judges.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A helping hand for all the Theists |
04 Mar 2007 08:43:50 AM |
|
|
V wrote:
Surely they'll see the logical contradiction and give over their
attempts at destroying your faith, right?
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
"attempts at destroying your faith"
or
attempts at destroying your lack of faith?
V:
We should never find happiness in destroying others belief systems.
If it prevents them from being deluded, sure we should.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
