| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 07:29:29 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
http://imagoveritatis.myatts.net/comments.php?id=24_0_1_0_C
Don't Believe It
I ran into a blog that claims to be based on "reason" alone and it
turned out to be, predictably, run by an Objectivist (with a capital
"O" that means a disciple of Ayn Rand). Objectivism is a form of
atheism, though they tend to focus much more on the positive aspects of
their system rather than getting hung up on the God thing, unlike the
folks over at infidels.org. Anyway, that prompted to me to pull off the
shelf one of the many books that I have bought and put away for future
reading, (whenever that is - heh, heh) and before I knew it I was well
into it. The book is John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the
Close of Her System, available here.
Well, the book is a masterpiece, and though I don't follow every detail
of Gordon Clark's philosophy which figures heavily in Robbins'
argument, by the end of the chapter on epistemology he has reduced
Rand's system to a pile of rubble that is hopelessly beyond salvaging.
In fact, one cannot but conclude, after reading this analysis, that
Rand's system, rather than being founded upon reason, is profoundly
irrational. It surely requires a blind leap of faith to grasp. I won't
repeat the arguments here; the reader is encouraged to get the book and
see.
So, in that vein, I have been scrounging around the web to see what
else there is in the blogosphere (hey I'm getting into this new lingo!)
when I came across this piece from Tertius, who complains about
atheists who pretend that they do not have a world view, but rather
that they simply lack a belief in God. He calls this atheism lite -
well put I think - because it IS a cop out, as he shows. I have run
across this kind of thing, of course and after analyzing atheism I came
up with at least four positive philosophical assertions that
necessariliy follow from the denial of the existence of God, which are
discussed on page 10 of my conversations with atheists and which I will
quote here:
So when the atheist denies or says he does not believe in a God, he is
necessarily making a number of positive world view presuppositions
about the nature of the universe. What are some of these? At least the
following:
1) The universe is self-sufficient in its existence and operations. It
is autonomous and not dependent upon another external entity, but
functions based on the laws of nature which determine its character.
2) The principles of knowledge or interpretation of the universe are
contained within and derived from the universe itself. There is no need
for a revelation or interpretation of the universe from a vantage point
outside of the universe. Since there is no outside the universe,
according to the atheist, no such revelation could exist in any case.
Therefore, the ultimate reference point for predication and
interpretation is a principle such as logic, sense perception,
intuition, all of which must exist in the universe, and which were
derived ultimately from human reason. The human mind is autonomous and
is adequate to discover truth on its own, using its own methods. All
truth claims must pass the test of human reason. There is no higher
authority.
3) Right and wrong are relative terms that describe social norms
developed by humankind to enhance its survival and pleasure. There is
no absolute right and wrong and in the end, it is the autonomous human
mind that legislates morality.
4) There is no discernible purpose to history or in the operations and
existence of the universe. The universe is the ultimate reality and it
is impersonal and unconcerned about us or our fate. It is simply there
and appears to be what it is largely as a result of chance. The human
future is undetermined, since there is no divine plan governing it. The
meaning of life is what we make of it based on the decisions of our
autonomous wills, and there is no final meaning in the end.
Each of these four notions corresponds to an interpretation of the four
areas that define a world view: ontology (the nature of reality or
being), epistemology (the theory of how we have and justify knowledge),
ethics (the theory of the ultimate good and of moral action), and
teleology (the theory of the purpose of it all). Thus, we see that the
denial of belief in God necessarily implies a basic set of world view
assumptions (axioms or presuppositions) that form a positive
interpretation of the state of affairs.
So the atheist really has no excuse and nowhere to hide. The assertion
that atheism is just a denial is merely a smokescreen to avoid having
to mount a defense of his position. But that emperor is stark naked.
The atheist who wants any intellectual respect is both philosophically
and morally obligated to defend his beliefs as a system, and that means
defending the above assertions. And that puts his whole system up for
discussion. Once we open that door then it is only a matter of time
before the inherent irrationality of atheism reveals itself and the
atheist has to look squarely in the face that fact that his whole
system is built on a leap of faith, and a blind one at that.
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
03 Nov 2005 09:23:58 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
Are you even capable of understanding arguing an abstract logical
variable? Or the concept of "put up or shut up"? Or of correcting
somebody else's vicious slanders about us?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
03 Nov 2005 11:57:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Are you even capable of understanding arguing an abstract logical
variable?
<LOL> Irony anyone?
Or the concept of "put up or shut up"? Or of correcting
somebody else's vicious slanders about us?
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
04 Nov 2005 06:57:54 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:06 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
It's not a belief in the existence of god. Unfortunately, you
keep strawmanning.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
04 Nov 2005 07:31:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:57:54 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:06 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
It's not a belief in the existence of god.
Well,. no, it's a belief in the non-existence of God.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 01:06:19 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:57:54 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:06 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say,
"no, I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the
existence of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
It's not a belief in the existence of god.
Well,. no, it's a belief in the non-existence of God.
For some of us, its proof god cannot exist.
And watching how dishonest you all are about
that argument.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 08:41:29 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:57:54 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:06 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
It's not a belief in the existence of god.
Well,. no, it's a belief in the non-existence of God.
In other words, this "God" exists, atheists just don't believe it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 11:16:09 AM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 06:41:29 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:57:54 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:06 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> let us all know that:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
It's not a belief in the existence of god.
Well,. no, it's a belief in the non-existence of God.
In other words, this "God" exists, atheists just don't believe it.
Actually, what you have is a belief system that is based upon no
relevant facts......
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
03 Nov 2005 02:49:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:06 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Are you really this stupid, or just being an *****?
Read my last paragraph and point out where I said that. You can't?
Obviously not, idiot.
Are you even capable of understanding arguing an abstract logical
variable?
<LOL> Irony anyone?
Only in your deluded imagination, moron.
Or the concept of "put up or shut up"? Or of correcting
somebody else's vicious slanders about us?
Well, moron?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
03 Nov 2005 06:23:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:49:39 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:06 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Are you really this stupid, or just being an *****?
Read my last paragraph and point out where I said that. You can't?
Obviously not, idiot.
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
something that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
Are you even capable of understanding arguing an abstract logical
variable?
<LOL> Irony anyone?
Only in your deluded imagination, moron.
Or the concept of "put up or shut up"? Or of correcting
somebody else's vicious slanders about us?
Well, moron?
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
04 Nov 2005 08:19:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:23:26 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Read my last paragraph and point out where I said that. You can't?
Obviously not, idiot.
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
something that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
If someone out of the blue claimed: "There is a huge Pink elephant
that only I can see and it tells me to dance in intersections."
You would have no 'belief' about their elephant, yet many would
correct this person and mention that elephants aren't invisible, and
if there indeed WERE, they wouldn't have a color.
You can be disingenuous and state, "invisible pink talking elephants
MAY exist and this dancing guy may actually see them", but in REALITY
we know they don't.
100 out of 100 psychiatrists and lay people would call this guy
dancing in the street intersections delusional at best...
Yet you expect people to believe in YOUR invisible talking creature.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
04 Nov 2005 06:32:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 06:19:30 -0800, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:23:26 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Read my last paragraph and point out where I said that. You can't?
Obviously not, idiot.
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
something that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
If someone out of the blue claimed: "There is a huge Pink elephant
that only I can see and it tells me to dance in intersections."
You would have no 'belief' about their elephant, yet many would
correct this person and mention that elephants aren't invisible, and
if there indeed WERE, they wouldn't have a color.
<LOL> So you think that believing that an elephant isn't invisible
nor that they have color isn't a belief?
You can be disingenuous and state, "invisible pink talking elephants
MAY exist and this dancing guy may actually see them", but in REALITY
we know they don't.
Hmmmm, so that means that you "know" that there is no God?
100 out of 100 psychiatrists and lay people would call this guy
dancing in the street intersections delusional at best...
Yet you expect people to believe in YOUR invisible talking creature.
Sorry, I don't have any invisible talking creatures.
James, Seattle
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
04 Nov 2005 09:46:03 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:49:39 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:06 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Are you really this stupid, or just being an *****?
Read my last paragraph and point out where I said that. You can't?
Obviously not, idiot.
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
something that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
It's easy, which is why it's so surprising so many people, such as
yourself, continue to insist on getting it wrong. We say, "That belief
you have, that you insist we must have? We don't have it; please stop
lying. Now, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence to support
your assertion?" It doesn't appear to do any good, though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
04 Nov 2005 06:32:24 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2005 07:46:03 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:49:39 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:06 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Are you really this stupid, or just being an *****?
Read my last paragraph and point out where I said that. You can't?
Obviously not, idiot.
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
something that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
It's easy, which is why it's so surprising so many people, such as
yourself, continue to insist on getting it wrong. We say, "That belief
you have, that you insist we must have?
And that would be pretty much all you *could* say about God if indeed
you had no beliefs about God..... and yet you go beyond that and
claim that the other person's beliefs are wrong.... which, of
course, a belief on your part.
We don't have it; please stop
lying. Now, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence to support
your assertion?" It doesn't appear to do any good, though.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 09:46:47 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 07:46:03 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
something that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
It's easy, which is why it's so surprising so many people, such as
yourself, continue to insist on getting it wrong. We say, "That belief
you have, that you insist we must have?
And that would be pretty much all you *could* say about God if indeed
you had no beliefs about God.....
Why? Because you say so? Atheists are obligated to let theists walk
all over them, because Steve says that's what people who lack theism
must do; otherwise, they're lying about their atheism. Good thing
you're around to tell us what we REALLY believe and how we should act;
we were lost without you.
and yet you go beyond that and claim that the other person's beliefs are wrong....
Only if they are. Take your belief that you know what you're talking
about, for example.
which, of course, a belief on your part.
Still wrong. Pointing out self-contradictory things has nothing to do
with an atheist's lack of belief. It's not the atheist's fault the
theist believes self-contradictory things can exist. As I pointed out,
there's a difference between "knowledge" and "belief."
We don't have it; please stop
lying. Now, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence to support
your assertion?" It doesn't appear to do any good, though.
Thank you for again proving my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 11:16:09 AM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 07:46:47 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 07:46:03 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
something that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
It's easy, which is why it's so surprising so many people, such as
yourself, continue to insist on getting it wrong. We say, "That belief
you have, that you insist we must have?
And that would be pretty much all you *could* say about God if indeed
you had no beliefs about God.....
Why? Because you say so? Atheists are obligated to let theists walk
all over them, because Steve says that's what people who lack theism
must do; otherwise, they're lying about their atheism. Good thing
you're around to tell us what we REALLY believe and how we should act;
we were lost without you.
<LOL> Oh, I forgot that you leftist morons were all victims......
and yet you go beyond that and claim that the other person's beliefs are wrong....
Only if they are. Take your belief that you know what you're talking
about, for example.
which, of course, a belief on your part.
Still wrong. Pointing out self-contradictory things has nothing to do
with an atheist's lack of belief. It's not the atheist's fault the
theist believes self-contradictory things can exist. As I pointed out,
there's a difference between "knowledge" and "belief."
We don't have it; please stop
lying. Now, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence to support
your assertion?" It doesn't appear to do any good, though.
Thank you for again proving my point.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 02:47:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:16:09 -0500, nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
<LOL> Oh, I forgot that you leftist morons were all victims......
Now who, apart from an American, republican, fundy, would tag us as politically
left, simply because we are atheist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 07:03:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:47:10 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:16:09 -0500, nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
<LOL> Oh, I forgot that you leftist morons were all victims......
Now who, apart from an American, republican, fundy, would tag us as politically
left, simply because we are atheist?
<LOL> It wasn't the atheist claim, it was claiming to be a victim
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 05:59:16 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 07:46:47 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 07:46:03 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <je sshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
something that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
It's easy, which is why it's so surprising so many people, such as
yourself, continue to insist on getting it wrong. We say, "That belief
you have, that you insist we must have?
And that would be pretty much all you *could * say about God if indeed
you had no beliefs about God.....
Why? Because you say so? Atheists are obligated to let theists walk
all over them, because Steve says that's what people who lack theism
must do; otherwise, they're lying abou t their atheism. Good thing
you're around to tell us what we REALLY believe and how we should act;
we were lost without you.
<LOL> Oh, I forgot that you leftist morons were all victims......
I'll just make note of the fact that you ducked the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 07:03:29 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 15:59:16 -0800, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 07:46:47 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 07:46:03 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <je sshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
something that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
It's easy, which is why it's so surprising so many people, such as
yourself, continue to insist on getting it wrong. We say, "That belief
you have, that you insist we must have?
And that would be pretty much all you *could * say about God if indeed
you had no beliefs about God.....
Why? Because you say so? Atheists are obligated to let theists walk
all over them, because Steve says that's what people who lack theism
must do; otherwise, they're lying abou t their atheism. Good thing
you're around to tell us what we REALLY believe and how we should act;
we were lost without you.
<LOL> Oh, I forgot that you leftist morons were all victims......
I'll just make note of the fact that you ducked the question.
The answer was obvious. If a person has no beliefs about something,
just about anything he says about it would be an expression of an
opinion or a belief.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
06 Nov 2005 01:26:07 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 15:59:16 -0800, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 07:46:47 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
neverm ore wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 07:46:03 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <je sshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
so mething that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
It's easy, which is why it's so surprising so many people, such as
yourself, continue to insist on getti ng it wrong. We say, "That belief
you have, that you insist we must have?
And that would be pretty much all you *could * say about God if indeed
you had no beliefs about God.....
Why? Because you say so? Atheists are obligated to let theists walk
all over them, because Steve says that's what people who lack theism
must do; otherwise, they're lying abou t their atheism. Good thing
you're around to tell us what we REALLY believe and how we should act;
we were lost without you.
<LOL> Oh, I forgot that you leftist morons were all victims......
I'll just make note of the fact that you ducked the question.
The answer was obvious. If a person has no beliefs about something,
just about anything he says about it would be an expression of an
opinion or a belief.
Ah, it is a bit over your head then. It's probably a waste
of time but ... you say:
"And that would be pretty much all you *could * say about God if indeed
you had no beliefs about God....."
All he could say about...who? Had no beliefs about ..what?
What the ***** are you talking about? What is "god"? You
closet theists are so obliviously provincial you think everybody
knows what you mean by the word, and indeed think everybody
means the same thing that you do by it. But if you take a break
from your lowbrow pursuit of attention and actually look around
you will find that people are all over the map about what they
mean. Some people imagine god as "everything" or "nature." Some
people imagine an inept and vindictive micro-manager as depicted
in the Bible. Who knows what the ***** _you_ mean by the word
(or why you are obsessed about attitudes others may or may not
hold about something you claim you can't know anything about)?
You haven't figured out that you have never once defined what it
is that you mean by the word? And you've been here how long?
So tell us, Einstein, what the ***** is this "god" thing you have
an uncontrollable urge to talk about?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
07 Nov 2005 06:42:11 AM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 11:26:07 -0800, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 15:59:16 -0800, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 07:46:47 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
neverm ore wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 07:46:03 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <je sshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
<LOL> I'm wondering how you can "correct" someone regarding
so mething that you have no "beliefs" about... I'm thinking that any
lurkers here are wondering the same thing.
It's easy, which is why it's so surprising so many people, such as
yourself, continue to insist on getti ng it wrong. We say, "That belief
you have, that you insist we must have?
And that would be pretty much all you *could * say about God if indeed
you had no beliefs about God.....
Why? Because you say so? Atheists are obligated to let theists walk
all over them, because Steve says that's what people who lack theism
must do; otherwise, they're lying abou t their atheism. Good thing
you're around to tell us what we REALLY believe and how we should act;
we were lost without you.
<LOL> Oh, I forgot that you leftist morons were all victims......
I'll just make note of the fact that you ducked the question.
The answer was obvious. If a person has no beliefs about something,
just about anything he says about it would be an expression of an
opinion or a belief.
Ah, it is a bit over your head then. It's probably a waste
of time but ... you say:
"And that would be pretty much all you *could * say about God if indeed
you had no beliefs about God....."
All he could say about...who? Had no beliefs about ..what?
What the ***** are you talking about? What is "god"? You
closet theists are so obliviously provincial you think everybody
knows what you mean by the word, and indeed think everybody
means the same thing that you do by it. But if you take a break
from your lowbrow pursuit of attention and actually look around
you will find that people are all over the map about what they
mean. Some people imagine god as "everything" or "nature." Some
people imagine an inept and vindictive micro-manager as depicted
in the Bible. Who knows what the ***** _you_ mean by the word
(or why you are obsessed about attitudes others may or may not
hold about something you claim you can't know anything about)?
You haven't figured out that you have never once defined what it
is that you mean by the word? And you've been here how long?
So tell us, Einstein, what the ***** is this "god" thing you have
an uncontrollable urge to talk about?
Actually, I simply get a kick out of tweaking you atheist morons.....
making you sputter and spit....
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
03 Nov 2005 12:59:44 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Of course not. It's expressing an opinion regarding someone else's
belief.
Are you even capable of understanding arguing an abstract logical
variable?
<LOL> Irony anyone?
We just keep narrowly missing the top of your head, don't we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
03 Nov 2005 06:23:25 PM |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2005 10:59:44 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Of course not. It's expressing an opinion regarding someone else's
belief.
<ROTFLMAO> You're not very good at spinning....
o·pin·ion
n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not
substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by
thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a
medical opinion.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Whoops, ya moron, you'd better rethink that "opinion" claim.... <LOL>
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
04 Nov 2005 09:54:09 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 10:59:44 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existen=
ce
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Of course not. It's expressing an opinion regarding someone else's beli=
ef.
<ROTFLMAO> You're not very good at spinning....
o=B7pin=B7ion
n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not
substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by
thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a
medical opinion.
Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright =A9 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Whoops, ya moron, you'd better rethink that "opinion" claim.... <LOL>
Why? It's exactly the word I want. Asking someone to support their
claim about deities isn't an expression of belief or disbelief
regarding deities. In my OPINION, unsupported ASSERTIONS are a poor
justification for BELIEF. The BELIEF might be accurate, but one can't
draw that conclusion from unsupported ASSERTIONS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
04 Nov 2005 06:32:24 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2005 07:54:09 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 10:59:44 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Of course not. It's expressing an opinion regarding someone else's belief.
<ROTFLMAO> You're not very good at spinning....
o·pin·ion
n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not
substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by
thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a
medical opinion.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Whoops, ya moron, you'd better rethink that "opinion" claim.... <LOL>
Why? It's exactly the word I want. Asking someone to support their
claim about deities isn't an expression of belief or disbelief
regarding deities. In my OPINION, unsupported ASSERTIONS are a poor
justification for BELIEF. The BELIEF might be accurate, but one can't
draw that conclusion from unsupported ASSERTIONS.
An opinion *is* a belief, ya moron.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 09:18:00 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 07:54:09 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 10:59:44 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, =
"no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the exis=
tence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Of course not. It's expressing an opinion regarding someone else's b=
elief.
<ROTFLMAO> You're not very good at spinning....
o=B7pin=B7ion
n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not
substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by
thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a
medical opinion.
Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright =A9 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Whoops, ya moron, you'd better rethink that "opinion" claim.... <LOL>
Why? It's exactly the word I want. Asking someone to support their
claim about deities isn't an expression of belief or disbelief
regarding deities. In my OPINION, unsupported ASSERTIONS are a poor
justification for BELIEF. The BELIEF might be accurate, but one can't
draw that conclusion from unsupported ASSERTIONS.
An opinion *is* a belief, ya moron.
It's so tempting to sink to your level.
In this instance, it's a belief based on facts. By all means, if
you've got some persuasive factual evidence that might change my
opinion, please present it.
http://47.1911encyclopedia.org/O/OP/OPINION.htm
OPINION (Lat. opinio, from opinari, to think), a term used loosely in
ordinary speech for an idea or an explanation of facts which is
regarded as being based on evidence which is good but not conclusive.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=3Dopinion
O*pin"ion (?), n. [F., from L. opinio. See Opine.]
1=2E That which is opined; a notion or conviction founded on probable
evidence; belief stronger than impression, less strong than positive
knowledge; settled judgment in regard to any point of knowledge or
action.
Opinion is when the assent of the understanding is so far gained by
evidence of probability, that it rather inclines to one persussion than
to another, yet not without a mixture of incertainty or doubting. Sir
M=2E Hale.
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=
=3Dopinion
OPINION, n. opin'yon. [L. opinio, from opinor, to thing, Gr., L.
suppono.]
1. The judgment which the mind forms of any proposition, statement,
theory or event, the truth or falsehood of which is supported by a
degree of evidence that renders it probably, but does not produce
absolute knowledge or certainty. It has been a received opinion that
all matter is comprised in four elements. This opinion is proved by
many discoveries to be false. From circumstances we form opinions
respecting future events.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=3D55695&dict=3DCALD
3 [C] a judgment about someone or something:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?re=
fid=3D1861635176
5=2E law conclusion of fact: a conclusion drawn from observation of the
facts
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/opinion
1=2E a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce
complete certainty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
05 Nov 2005 11:16:08 AM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 07:18:00 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 07:54:09 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 10:59:44 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:23:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:51:01 -0500, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
No, liar, we point out the faults in what idiots insist we take
seriously, we demand they back up their ridiculous claims, and we
correct them when they lie about us as you are doing.
<LMAO> and you think that telling people that their beliefs about
God are invalid is not, in itself, expressing a belief about God?
Of course not. It's expressing an opinion regarding someone else's belief.
<ROTFLMAO> You're not very good at spinning....
o·pin·ion
n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not
substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by
thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a
medical opinion.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Whoops, ya moron, you'd better rethink that "opinion" claim.... <LOL>
Why? It's exactly the word I want. Asking someone to support their
claim about deities isn't an expression of belief or disbelief
regarding deities. In my OPINION, unsupported ASSERTIONS are a poor
justification for BELIEF. The BELIEF might be accurate, but one can't
draw that conclusion from unsupported ASSERTIONS.
An opinion *is* a belief, ya moron.
It's so tempting to sink to your level.
In this instance, it's a belief based on facts. By all means, if
you've got some persuasive factual evidence that might change my
opinion, please present it.
b-b-b-but didn't you claim that you didn't have *any* such beliefs?
http://47.1911encyclopedia.org/O/OP/OPINION.htm
OPINION (Lat. opinio, from opinari, to think), a term used loosely in
ordinary speech for an idea or an explanation of facts which is
regarded as being based on evidence which is good but not conclusive.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=opinion
O*pin"ion (?), n. [F., from L. opinio. See Opine.]
1. That which is opined; a notion or conviction founded on probable
evidence; belief stronger than impression, less strong than positive
knowledge; settled judgment in regard to any point of knowledge or
action.
Opinion is when the assent of the understanding is so far gained by
evidence of probability, that it rather inclines to one persussion than
to another, yet not without a mixture of incertainty or doubting. Sir
M. Hale.
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=opinion
OPINION, n. opin'yon. [L. opinio, from opinor, to thing, Gr., L.
suppono.]
1. The judgment which the mind forms of any proposition, statement,
theory or event, the truth or falsehood of which is supported by a
degree of evidence that renders it probably, but does not produce
absolute knowledge or certainty. It has been a received opinion that
all matter is comprised in four elements. This opinion is proved by
many discoveries to be false. From circumstances we form opinions
respecting future events.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=55695&dict=CALD
3 [C] a judgment about someone or something:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861635176
5. law conclusion of fact: a conclusion drawn from observation of the
facts
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/opinion
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce
complete certainty.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
03 Nov 2005 10:44:24 AM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On 2 Nov 2005 07:09:22 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
On 1 Nov 2005 19:41:07 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
nevermore wrote:
That's ridiculous. The entire premise of atheism is the assertion
that there is no god.
Oops, wrong again. The only "premise" of atheism is lack of theism,
hence the term, "atheism," with means "without theism." This has been
pointed out to you more than once.
<LOL> Your logic is seriously flawed...
You're trying to redefine what atheism is; I'm just correcting you.
How is that flawed logic?
No response?
You're out here arguing with theists, and that totally destroys your
"premise" claim because you cannot argue a belief or a lack of belief,
since one's beliefs are entirely subjective.
So when a theist stomps into alt.atheism and says, "You really believe
in god, you just hate him," atheists should just agree?
Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.
Why do you lie? Why do you ignore what is written? Why do you ignore
reality? YOU keep insisting there's more to the atheist position; YOU
keep claiming "atheists are lying about their beliefs, because they
keep asking theists for evidence of their assertions;" YOU keep
insisting that lack of belief is a belief.
When a theist
says, "You can't be moral because you don't believe in god," an atheist
shouldn't defend him or herself? When a theist says, "My god is real,
and you better believe in him or else," an atheist should refrain from
saying, "I don't believe you; do you have any objective, verifiable
evidence?"
What makes you think you can't argue the validity of a belief?
Well, as I said, the *validity* of beliefs is exactly what you are
arguing, not that you have no beliefs, as you claim to be the only
premise that is involved.
You're babbling. Theists claim "gods exist." Atheists respond "I
don't believe you." At which point, you jump in and start whining,
"You can't know gods don't exist, therefore you have a belief." You're
inventing a position for atheists so you can knock it down. There's a
word for that.
If, as you say, the only premise you were arguing here was your "lack
of theism," there would be nothing to argue about.
If theists would leave it alone, you'd be correct. But they don't, and
you aren't. As has been pointed out, theists almost ALWAYS argue from
the position that their belief is REAL, and refuse to grant that
someone else might think otherwise (although I have seen an extremely
limited few who admit the atheist position is the more rational one).
So if they argue that their beliefs is real, and you argue that it
isn't real, you have gone beyond what you say your premise is and now
you're arguing that there is no God.
Please, keep ignoring what I've said. It makes you seem so
intelligent. Atheists don't care what theists believe; the problem, as
I keep pointing out, is that the vast majority of theists get real | |
