| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"~Glorious Appearing~" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2005 02:00:30 AM |
| Object: |
ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
Answers to positions held by atheists
1.. There is no God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God
means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God.
Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot
logically say there is no God.
2.. I believe there is no God
1.. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on
what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of
the three?
1.. If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves
God's existence?
1.. There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in
nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How
could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator
of reality and separate from it?
(I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible).
2.. Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can
rightly testify that God does not exist.
2.. If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's
existence?
1.. At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving
theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the
proofs thus presented are insufficient.
2.. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and
negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one
can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore,
negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
3.. If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not
exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it
would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has
been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that
there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
3.. If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence
and is an arbitrary position.
4.. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then
according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism.
A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
2.. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by
faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there
are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually
impossible to prove a negative.
3.. There is no evidence for God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no
evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible
evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would
be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.
4.. I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.
1.. To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a
more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism
which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the
possibility of God's existence.
2.. If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means
he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence.
This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an
agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his
statement.
5.. I lack belief in God.
1.. To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the
assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above).
If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears its goal is to
maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to
attack.
The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual
position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position
since it is the result of a choice. Any position held, must have reasons or
it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he
lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
2.. My cat lacks belief in God as does my computer. Are they also
atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement
since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
3.. If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human
being, then see point A.
6.. I don't believe in God.
1.. Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not
believe in God?
2.. Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can
you please tell me what it is?
7.. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
1.. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in
terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through
natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition,
outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
2.. Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws,
then it means there is no evidence for God.
1.. But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because
naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert
that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do
not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact
that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via
naturalism.
--
Most of my quotes are from:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm http://www.carm.org/cults.htm
http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm http://www.carm.org/seekers.htm
http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm http://www.carm.org/boards.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ http://www.christianquotes.org/
http://bible.gospelcom.net/ Let no one be found among you
who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination
or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who
is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Deut 18:10
http://www.christiananswers.net/
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 02:22:12 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "~Glorious Appearing~" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 03:01:39 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
Therion,
I thank you so much for your reaction to tell everyone what is in my
signature!!:):) You are so lovely:):) I point them the way to the Carm
website thats all I do and I quote from it:):)_
You are so qute
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 03:40:41 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:01:39 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
Therion,
I thank you so much for your reaction to tell everyone what is in my
signature!!:):) You are so lovely:):) I point them the way to the Carm
website thats all I do and I quote from it:):)_
You are so qute
.... while blackouts aren't common until the 11th pint, or third
bottle, when you recover feel free to assuage my curiosity and let me
know if you meant "cute" or "quite," and if "quite" - quite what?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.co.uk/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "~Glorious Appearing~" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 05:03:14 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:mvs5g154hj6tfp8ko8oi01tijcd930heco@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:01:39 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
Therion,
I thank you so much for your reaction to tell everyone what is in my
signature!!:):) You are so lovely:):) I point them the way to the Carm
website thats all I do and I quote from it:):)_
You are so qute
... while blackouts aren't common until the 11th pint, or third
bottle, when you recover feel free to assuage my curiosity and let me
know if you meant "cute" or "quite," and if "quite" - quite what?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.co.uk/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
Positive about you is: you did not start to offend as many christians in the
christian groups do.
How bad ity may sound but atheists are better at debating issue's
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 06:00:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:03:14 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:mvs5g154hj6tfp8ko8oi01tijcd930heco@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:01:39 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
Therion,
I thank you so much for your reaction to tell everyone what is in my
signature!!:):) You are so lovely:):) I point them the way to the Carm
website thats all I do and I quote from it:):)_
You are so qute
... while blackouts aren't common until the 11th pint, or third
bottle, when you recover feel free to assuage my curiosity and let me
know if you meant "cute" or "quite," and if "quite" - quite what?
[sig snip]
Positive about you is:
on the dark side you are. As a matter of interest, is English your
first language?
you did not start to offend as many christians in the
christian groups do.
How bad ity may sound but atheists are better at debating issue's
Ah, now we can begin: Why do you think that is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 06:25:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:00:53 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com>
wrote:
<PIGGYBACKING>
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:03:14 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Positive about you is:
on the dark side you are. As a matter of interest, is English your
first language?
you did not start to offend as many christians in the
christian groups do.
Although it sometimes happens, it's rare that an atheist does start out to
deliberately offend. But we can be a bit snippy when theists insist on acting as
though we should treat their beliefs as a given.
How bad ity may sound but atheists are better at debating issue's
Ah, now we can begin: Why do you think that is?
Perhaps it's because our arguments are based on facts and logic rather than
personal belief and wishful thinking. <G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 07:45:52 AM |
|
|
In episode <ddv212$9nb$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Appearing~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:mvs5g154hj6tfp8ko8oi01tijcd930heco@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:01:39 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm --
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline
Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/ - Yep, currently
under test... Your opinion welcome.
Therion,
I thank you so much for your reaction to tell everyone what is in my
signature!!:):) You are so lovely:):) I point them the way to the Carm
website thats all I do and I quote from it:):)_ You are so qute
... while blackouts aren't common until the 11th pint, or third bottle,
when you recover feel free to assuage my curiosity and let me know if
you meant "cute" or "quite," and if "quite" - quite what? --
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline
Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.co.uk/ - Yep, currently
under test... Your opinion welcome.
Positive about you is:
Sure thing Yoda.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 12:35:54 PM |
|
|
on 17 Aug 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet ~Glorious Appearing~
(inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
Therion,
I thank you so much for your reaction to tell everyone what is in my
signature!!:):) You are so lovely:):) I point them the way to the Carm
website thats all I do and I quote from it:):)_
You are so qute
Maybe your sig is the only interesting part of your post.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "~Glorious Appearing~" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 02:53:01 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
You are full of jeleausy!! Abolutely!!:):):) And for everybody to see. You
yourself are using Carm website as an inspiration for everything you write.
You can stand it when you see the real stuf being posted because ikt takes
away some of your originallity!!:):):)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 03:22:31 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:53:01 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
You are full of jeleausy!! Abolutely!!:):):) And for everybody to see. You
yourself are using Carm website as an inspiration for everything you write.
You can stand it when you see the real stuf being posted because ikt takes
away some of your originallity!!:):):)
I would have thought it's a little early to be drinking, even in
Scotland.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 07:56:48 AM |
|
|
"~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in news:dduqcs
$kkr$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does
little more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th
commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
You are full of jeleausy!!
Better than being full of *****.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 07:46:18 AM |
|
|
In episode <dduqcs$kkr$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Appearing~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:k8p5g1lke5okvv839maiaksvc1ske0kgpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, ~Glorious
Appearing~ ("~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Do you actually have anything original to say, or will you simply
continue to copy and paste other people's apologetics which does little
more than illustrate your rather shakey grasp of the 8th commandment?
Answers to positions held by atheists
[snip]
http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm --
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline
Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/ - Yep, currently
under test... Your opinion welcome.
You are full of jeleausy!! Abolutely!!:):):) And for everybody to see. You
yourself are using Carm website as an inspiration for everything you
write. You can stand it when you see the real stuf being posted because
ikt takes away some of your originallity!!:):):)
Oh you're *sad.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 10:19:44 AM |
|
|
"~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> said:
Answers to positions held by atheists
1.. There is no God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God
means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God.
Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot
logically say there is no God.
Correct, if the character called "God" is constructed in such a way
that its nonexistence is unknowable for that reason. But this becomes
a tautology.
2.. I believe there is no God
1.. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on
what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of
the three?
Lack of motivation to change my belief. I introspect and find that I
believe there is no God. There is an amount of energy needed to change
this belief. I do not feel motivated to apply this energy.
1.. If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves
God's existence?
1.. There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in
nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How
could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator
of reality and separate from it?
Correct, as above, if "God" is constructed in such a way.
(I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible).
Why? The construction of the "Christian God" character is such that
its existence is undisprovable by evidence, logic or logic.
2.. Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can
rightly testify that God does not exist.
2.. If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's
existence?
1.. At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving
theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the
proofs thus presented are insufficient.
2.. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and
negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one
can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore,
negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
3.. If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not
exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it
would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has
been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that
there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
3.. If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence
and is an arbitrary position.
4.. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then
according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism.
A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
2.. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by
faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there
are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually
impossible to prove a negative.
3.. There is no evidence for God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no
evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible
evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would
be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.
4.. I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.
1.. To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a
more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism
which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the
possibility of God's existence.
2.. If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means
he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence.
This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an
agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his
statement.
5.. I lack belief in God.
Well, anybody who believes there is no God would say this.
1.. To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the
assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above).
If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears its goal is to
maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to
attack.
This is the only "logical" position to take WRT undisprovable gods,
but don't blame the atheists for coming up with an undisprovable god.
That is an invention of desperation on the other side. If you have the
courage to construct a God character whose existence is disprovable,
this "defensive" position would not be so popular.
The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual
position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position
since it is the result of a choice. Any position held, must have reasons or
it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he
lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
2.. My cat lacks belief in God as does my computer. Are they also
atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement
since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
3.. If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human
being, then see point A.
6.. I don't believe in God.
1.. Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not
believe in God?
2.. Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can
you please tell me what it is?
7.. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
I do not find in myself, a belief that naturalism is true. I do think
that as a way of looking at things, it makes for a sufficiently
interesting and satisfying life. However, I would be happy to hear how
your alternative could be superior in these ways.
1.. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in
terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through
natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition,
outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
2.. Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws,
then it means there is no evidence for God.
1.. But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because
naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert
that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do
not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact
that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via
naturalism.
A fine exposition. Now, is there an intellectually respectable* reason
I should change my belief that there is no being whose description
matches that of the "God" character that you have defended?
* I don't count Pascal's wager as intellectually respectable.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
18 Aug 2005 02:55:10 PM |
|
|
"~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> writes:
Answers to positions held by atheists
1.. There is no God 1.. This is not a logical position to hold since
to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things
to know there is no God.
Not true. There are rational and coherent foundations on which
one can stand and assert that there is no god. You make that very point
further down: there are two philosophical stances regarding the
universe, _naturalism_ and _supernaturalism_. The latter asserts that
there is at least one thing with power over and interest in our universe
who is not subject to the regularities of our universe; the former
asserts that there is no such thing.
Neither stance can be proven; both are simply matters of
assertion, first principles from which all other conclusions about the
universe descend.
As an atheist, I simply must point out that methodological
naturalism, the stance that one must act _as if_ naturalism were true in
order to be effective, has proven true: scientists have always acted as
if naturalism were true, and thanks to this position we live longer,
happier lives today than at any time in human history.
1.. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on
what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of
the three?
A red herring. Most atheists are provisional philosophical
naturalists: they are willing to be philosophical naturalists until
someone comes along and shows that supernaturalism is valid. I am not;
the supposed "supernatural incidence" is merely evidence that we don't
understand the universe well enough.
3.. There is no evidence for God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no
evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible
evidences for God's existence.
Again, this is nonsense. One can hold the provisional
conclusion "there is no evidence for God yet," and rightly be an
atheist.
1.. To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a
more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism
which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the
possibility of God's existence.
Anyone can always admit the possibility of God's existence as
readily as one can admit the possibility of the existence of the Bottled
City of Kandor. Believing that it exists in the face of such a lack is,
however, irrational and, according to formal agnosticism, evil.
1.. But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because
naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert
that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do
not know all phenomena that can and will occur.
Again, this is nonsense. Naturalism is not a position one takes
on evidence; it is a starting point, not an ending point.
The problem I have with most theists is that they act _as if_
naturalism were true, and yet they refuse to believe that naturalism is
true. That's hypocricy of the highest order, and I do not practice it.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 01:21:06 PM |
|
|
"~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ddunae$dsg$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
Answers to positions held by atheists
1.. There is no God
That pretty much sums it up.
(snip remainder of xian garbage)
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 07:01:31 AM |
|
|
"~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddunae$dsg$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Answers to positions held by atheists
1.. There is no God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no
God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no
God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he
cannot logically say there is no God.
hahahahahahahahahaha
full points for the stupidest argument ever. If there were a god there
would be proof there was a god. There is no proof therefore there is no
god - That is the logical argument
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " " |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 09:41:42 AM |
|
|
"~Glorious Appearing~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Answers to positions held by atheists
1.. There is no God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God
means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God.
Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot
logically say there is no God.
2.. I believe there is no God
1.. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on
what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of
the three?
1.. If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves
God's existence?
1.. There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in
nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How
could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator
of reality and separate from it?
(I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible).
2.. Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can
rightly testify that God does not exist.
2.. If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's
existence?
1.. At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving
theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the
proofs thus presented are insufficient.
2.. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and
negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one
can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore,
negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
3.. If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not
exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it
would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has
been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that
there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
3.. If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence
and is an arbitrary position.
4.. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then
according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism.
A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
2.. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by
faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there
are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually
impossible to prove a negative.
3.. There is no evidence for God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no
evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible
evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would
be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.
4.. I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.
1.. To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a
more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism
which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the
possibility of God's existence.
2.. If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means
he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence.
This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an
agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his
statement.
5.. I lack belief in God.
1.. To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the
assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above).
If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears its goal is to
maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to
attack.
The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual
position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position
since it is the result of a choice. Any position held, must have reasons or
it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he
lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
2.. My cat lacks belief in God as does my computer. Are they also
atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement
since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
3.. If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human
being, then see point A.
6.. I don't believe in God.
1.. Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not
believe in God?
2.. Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can
you please tell me what it is?
7.. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
1.. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in
terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through
natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition,
outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
2.. Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws,
then it means there is no evidence for God.
1.. But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because
naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert
that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do
not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact
that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via
naturalism.
--
Most of my quotes are from:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm http://www.carm.org/cults.htm
http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm http://www.carm.org/seekers.htm
http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm http://www.carm.org/boards.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ http://www.christianquotes.org/
http://bible.gospelcom.net/ Let no one be found among you
who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination
or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who
is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Deut 18:10
http://www.christiananswers.net/
What an utterly unfascinating treatise! Now go away.
MarkA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 07:43:28 AM |
|
|
In episode <ddunae$dsg$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Appearing~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
1.. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice.
Prove it.
If there is no evidence to convince me that X exists, I cannot just up and
"believe" it exists.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 10:53:30 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:16ydnbPr9ZRtrZ7eRVn-sA@megapath.net...
In episode <ddunae$dsg$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Appearing~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
1.. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice.
Prove it.
If there is no evidence to convince me that X exists, I cannot just up and
"believe" it exists.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
That is exactly what they do and why they think you do the same. There is
no evidence for the existence of a god but they "choose to believe"
(although I can't understand how someone can do that). It makes me wonder if
"believe " has the same meaning for them that it does for me. I think not.
Rob Brown
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 07:47:03 AM |
|
|
In episode <ddunae$dsg$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Appearing~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
Most of my quotes are from:
CARM?
Oh, no wonder you sound so stupid...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 09:40:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
1.. There is no God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God
means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God.
Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot
logically say there is no God.
Neither can you logically say that the Norse Gods do not exist, or the
Roman, Egyptian, Chinese, Mayan pantheons. Your argument there allows
for the existence of every make-believe creature out there because you
cannot prove a negative.
2.. I believe there is no God
1.. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on
what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of
the three?
I see no evidence for a deity, and indeed reading history shows that
deities have been used to explain natural phenomena now well
understood by science. Ergo, since we no longer need Thor to explain
lightning (it is an electrical discharge between the negatively
charged storm and the positive charge on the ground, not sparks from
the wheels of a god's goat cart) we can begin dismissing all the other
alleged effects of the deities.
Notice how the Christian god has slowly lost duties until all he
really seems to do is judge the dead and rest on his laurels as
creator? Used to be that diseases were sent by him (before we
understood the germ theory) and children were a miracle provided by
God (until somebody figured out sperm and eggs.)
For me, the breaking point came when I was seven anbd figured out that
Santa Claus wasn't real. All the other mythological entities my
parents had told me about quickly fell, and I came to the conclusion
there was less evidence for this God person then for Santa (Santa, at
least, gave me the Guns of Navaronne playset.)
1.. If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves
God's existence?
1.. There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in
nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How
could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator
of reality and separate from it?
The burden is on the one making the claim. If I say I don't believe
in Bigfoot, the pressure is not on me to comb every inch of the
Pacific Northwest to prove there are no seven-foot hominids hiding
there, the pressure is on those claiming Bigfoot is real.
So the pressure is on you to show proof of your god. Pointing to the
Bible will result in me pointing at the eddas and other holy texts.
Saying "just look around" will result in me complimenting Geb
(Egyptian god of creation) on his work.
(I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible).
Gee, I never would have figured that one out.
You realize that all your arguments can be used to defend the
existence of Odin and the Aesir, Vanir, and Giants, right?
2.. Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can
rightly testify that God does not exist.
Testimony is not evidence, first year law school. Testimony is one
person's views and can be used to support evidence.
Example, I witness a shooting. At the trial, the prosecutor asks me
"Do you see the man who shot the victim in this courtroom?" I
indicate the defendant. Next the prosecutor brings up the gun found
in the defendant's home "Is this the gun you saw that night?" I might
answer "It looks to be the same, but I can't be sure. The size is
right."
Every prosecutor dreads trying a case with no physical evidence for
this very reason. Without hard evidence, it becomes a matter of who
the jury believes.
2.. If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's
existence?
1.. At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving
theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the
proofs thus presented are insufficient.
2.. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and
negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one
can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore,
negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
3.. If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not
exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it
would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has
been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that
there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
3.. If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence
and is an arbitrary position.
4.. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then
according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism.
A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
Except the burden of proof is on you. I don't believe in your (or
any) God. Prove me wrong.
2.. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by
faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there
are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually
impossible to prove a negative.
3.. There is no evidence for God
1.. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no
evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible
evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would
be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.
There is no evidence for God that I am aware of. Do you have some
hard evidence that I have not yet seen?
4.. I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.
1.. To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a
more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism
which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the
possibility of God's existence.
Anything is possible. I could get a call tomorrow telling me that
I've been signed to pitch for the Giants. The likelihood of that
happening approaches zero, since my fastball blazes in at 32 mph and
my curve ball tends to be just a *little* outside the strike zone..
like five feet or so.
I don't believe in deities.
2.. If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means
he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence.
This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an
agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his
statement.
An agnostic is unsure, and atheist does not believe. Again, using
Bigfoot as an example, I do not believe in Bigfoot. Not unsure about
it, but simply do not believe. If one were captured, examined, and
confirmed as a new species of hominid, then my opinion would change
out of necessity. Same thing with deities. Show me hard proof that
can be tested and retested.
5.. I lack belief in God.
1.. To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the
assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above).
If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears its goal is to
maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to
attack.
The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual
position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position
since it is the result of a choice. Any position held, must have reasons or
it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he
lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
2.. My cat lacks belief in God as does my computer. Are they also
atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement
since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
How do you know you cat doesn't have its own belief system? I refer
you to Neil Gaiman's "Dream of a Thousand Cats" (Sandman #18,
collected in "The Sandman: Dream Country" You'll never watch your cat
twitch her claws in her sleep the same way again.
3.. If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human
being, then see point A.
6.. I don't believe in God.
1.. Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not
believe in God?
I explain it up above. God and Santa share many attributes:
1. No one ever sees them
2. The are allegedly omniscient, but for some reason even bad kids get
presents and evil people get church funerals.
3. They are both used as a carrot and stick to control behavoir.
At seven I realized this whole god business was bollocks.
2.. Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can
you please tell me what it is?
See above
..
7.. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
1.. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in
terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through
natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition,
outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
2.. Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws,
then it means there is no evidence for God.
1.. But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because
naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert
that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do
not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact
that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via
naturalism.
So because science hasn't answered all the questions, there's a god?
LOL!
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 05:20:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
2.. Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can
you please tell me what it is?
Is there an intelligent reason you don't believe great Cthulhu will
rise from the ocean and devour all of humanity when the stars are
properly aligned? Can you please tell me what it is?
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 04:32:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Answers to positions held by atheists
<snip lame "apologetic">
Once again, you're so far off base you aren't even in the ballpark. Try to get
your tiny mind around this concept. When no evidence can be presented to
indicate that a given thing exists, the inability to prove absolutely that it
does *not* exist is not sufficient reason to believe that it does. Try this
little test. Logically prove that a race of giant intelligent spiders does not
exist on the tenth planet of Aldebaran. Can't do it, can you? But despite the
fact that you can't absolutely prove the spiders don't exist, what logical
reason is there to believe they do? The point, oh ye of little intelligence, is
that no matter what claims you may make regarding the alleged validity of your
beliefs, no matter how hard you may try to logically defeat the atheist
position, there remains not a single infinitesimal shred of real, testable
objective evidence for the existence of any gods, yours included. Not one iota.
And that simple fact completely, utterly, totally negates any argument on behalf
of god belief you will ever present. Despite the tendency of theists and
atheists alike to overcomplicate the issue, often to the point of absurdity, it
really is that simple. You have no evidence to support your claims, therefore
there is no reason why we should believe them. Nothing more need be said.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 03:06:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Answers to positions held by atheists
We're merely people who aren't theist.
Stop dishonestly inventing emotionally prejudicial strawmen based on
presumptions that don't evenapply to us.
All your in-your-face falsehoods do, is ddemonstrate what a moron you
are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "~Glorious Appearing~" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 03:09:15 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5sr5g1hsd7s45ie53cb2ojr4bkllrt2csd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Answers to positions held by atheists
We're merely people who aren't theist.
Stop dishonestly inventing emotionally prejudicial strawmen based on
presumptions that don't evenapply to us.
All your in-your-face falsehoods do, is ddemonstrate what a moron you
are.
If I am a Moron you are are super Morons and by that we are mebers of one
family. The Moron family wich you are the originator from
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 07:44:08 AM |
|
|
In episode <ddurbb$mkl$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Appearing~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5sr5g1hsd7s45ie53cb2ojr4bkllrt2csd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Answers to positions held by atheists
We're merely people who aren't theist.
Stop dishonestly inventing emotionally prejudicial strawmen based on
presumptions that don't evenapply to us.
All your in-your-face falsehoods do, is ddemonstrate what a moron you
are.
If I am a Moron you are are super Morons and by that we are mebers of one
family. The Moron family wich you are the originator from
Wow, there's a way to attract people to your religion, get snotty with
them...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 08:44:39 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:E7mdncRDj4uFrJ7eRVn-iQ@megapath.net...
In episode <ddurbb$mkl$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Appearing~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5sr5g1hsd7s45ie53cb2ojr4bkllrt2csd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Answers to positions held by atheists
We're merely people who aren't theist.
Stop dishonestly inventing emotionally prejudicial strawmen based on
presumptions that don't evenapply to us.
All your in-your-face falsehoods do, is ddemonstrate what a moron you
are.
If I am a Moron you are are super Morons and by that we are mebers of
one
family. The Moron family wich you are the originator from
Wow, there's a way to attract people to your religion, get snotty with
them...
As well as rant like a lunatic :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 09:20:55 AM |
|
|
In episode <3mgtcnF16s3otU1@individual.net>, Robibnikoff burst into the
room and exclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:E7mdncRDj4uFrJ7eRVn-iQ@megapath.net...
In episode <ddurbb$mkl$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
~Glorious Appearing~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5sr5g1hsd7s45ie53cb2ojr4bkllrt2csd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Answers to positions held by atheists
We're merely people who aren't theist.
Stop dishonestly inventing emotionally prejudicial strawmen based on
presumptions that don't evenapply to us.
All your in-your-face falsehoods do, is ddemonstrate what a moron you
are.
If I am a Moron you are are super Morons and by that we are mebers of
one
family. The Moron family wich you are the originator from
Wow, there's a way to attract people to your religion, get snotty with
them...
As well as rant like a lunatic :P
You know, I don't recall that Jesus figure advocating trolling...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 04:07:59 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In episode <3mgtcnF16s3otU1@individual.net>, Robibnikoff burst into the
room and exclaimed:
[....]
when Robibnikoff burst into the room and
exclaimed, did that rapid movement mess up her hairdo?
sometimes when girls move really fast they mess up their hairdo.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: ANSWERS TO ATHEISTIC POSITIONS |
17 Aug 2005 09:27:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:44:39 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:E7mdncRDj4uFrJ7eRVn-iQ@megapath.net...
In episode <ddurbb$mkl$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Appearing~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5sr5g1hsd7s45ie53cb2ojr4bkllrt2csd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:00:30 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Answers to positions held by atheists
We're merely people who aren't theist.
Stop dishonestly inventing emotionally prejudicial strawmen based on
presumptions that don't evenapply to us.
All your in-your-face falsehoods do, is ddemonstrate what a moron you
are.
If I am a Moron you are are super Morons and by that we are mebers of
one
family. The Moron family wich you are the originator from
Wow, there's a way to attract people to your religion, get snotty with
them...
Clearly his intent is simply to denigrate and attack us for not
conforming to and sharing his belief system.
If he is a typical Christian believer then it is no wonder the western
world is increasingly turning its back on these nasty people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
