| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Adeimantos" |
| Date: |
02 Dec 2004 05:43:36 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0202/atheism.htm
Atheism: The Religion of Fools
by Perry Kiraly
"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 13:1 LXX).
The word fool in the Septuagint is translated for the Greek word aphron (SRN
878) and is defined as: "mindless; i.e. stupid (by implication) ignorant,
(specially) egotistic, (practically) rash, or (morally) unbelieving: -
fool(ish), unwise."
In short, even those utilizing an extremely small amount of brainwork ought
to be able to comprehend the existence of God. The Scripture further expands
upon this statement with a definitive explanation as to why:
"Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not
out of the good things that are seen know Him that is: neither by
considering the works did they acknowledge the Workmaster; but deemed either
fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent
water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world. With
whose beauty if they being delighted, took them to be gods; let them know
how much better the Master of them is: for the first Author of beauty has
created them. But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let
them understand by them, how much mightier He is that made them. For by the
greatness and beauty of the creatures, proportionably, the Maker of them is
seen. But yet for this, they are the less to be blamed: for they
peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find Him. For being
conversant in His works, they search diligently and believe their sight:
because the things are beautiful that are seen. Howbeit, neither are they to
be pardoned. For if they were able to know so much, that they could aim at
the world; How did they not sooner find out the Master thereof? But
miserable are they and in dead things is their confidence" (Wisdom 13:1-10
LXX).
There are any number of books available today which refute the spontaneous
random development or evolution of life on this planet. Utilizing the latest
scientific knowledge and available technologies, the extreme improbability,
if not impossibility, of life developing or evolving in this matter has been
proven. But the foregoing words in the Scripture were penned long before any
such scientific knowledge or technologies were available. Further, these
verses are very clear in showing that observation and contemplation of the
creation or nature alone will lead one to the reality of God.
Putting these claims to the test, let us see if simple observation and
contemplation of creation or nature will reveal the existence of God,
excluding any and all use of modern science and/or technology.
If spontaneous or random evolution occurred, by definition, no real rhyme,
reason, plan, or intelligence was behind it; hence none in any constancy is
likely to be observed. If, on the other hand, behind all creation lies the
hand of an Omniscient Being, God, the complexity of His character,
intelligence, and planning will be reflected in His work, and conversely,
His works will be a reflection of Him.
Consider first the theory of random development, assuming that all of the
necessary components conducive to life as we know it were present, e.g. the
earth, sun and moon are fully formed and at the necessary distances, the
elements are present, the atmosphere is present, along with the various
cycles needed to maintain such functioning. These are huge assumptions,
especially when one considers that some biochemical cycles, such as the
oxygen and carbon dioxide cycle, require life forms such as algae to
function. But, for the sake of argument and for the benefit of random
evolution theorists, we will assume that these elements are just here,
then … somehow…
So once upon a time, long, long ago, as the randomists tell it, a sudden
flash of light by the discharge of atmospheric electricity or lightening
hits a glob of pond scum and animates it, jump-starting some elements into
throbbing with life. What would make it keep throbbing? How would it stay
"alive" or maintain its new-found animation? What would keep this now
"living matter" from returning to just being some elements in a pond?
If, by chance, it did happen to maintain animation for a period, How or what
would make it accidentally develop a way to take in energy or food? How
could it metabolize or discard waste?
Then, according to the randomist theorists, an even bigger accident takes
place: without any plan, genetic blueprint, or instruction, this "animated"
matter lives long enough to accidentally develop a mode of movement to get
around, senses to explore the world, and a way to find or manufacture some
form of energy for food to continue its existence.
It accidentally discovers a way to reproduce and finds a way to divide
itself into all the life forms that we see today on the planet, plus all the
ones that are now extinct.
In some cases it accidentally found ways to make eyes to see, spacing them
in perfect symmetry, when it did not even know that there was anything to
see or that anything was seeable for such eyes. It, for some reason, evolved
a way to hear things that it never had heard. It developed a brain to help
it think so it could run the functions necessary to sustain its existence
and existed somehow all that time up until that point without a brain … and
so on and so on until you end up with the distinct and diverse array of life
forms, ecosystems, and species within separate categories, all of which
suddenly and inexplicably ceased their random development which made
possible their existence in the first place. And after all these amazing
things had taken place, these organisms also made up the idea that they
should bear after their own kind.
A lot of difficult questions arise with this "random" theory, but none as
great as the following - Where are all these transitional species, if indeed
by all the different combinations, each at astronomical odds, these
virtually impossible billions of occurrences did in fact take place?
In the case of man, even if we start at our hypothesized simian stage (an
immensely complex point of development as compared to pond scum by the way)
to modern human, there are still many questions left unanswered. Where are
all the half-monkey/half human transitional organisms, or 40%/60%
simian/human, or 90%/10%, 80%/20%, 70%/30% mixtures? Not only do the various
stages of development up to human require consideration, what of everything
else? Where are the transitional beings for the elephants, giraffes, etc.?
Some atheists might say that these interim stages of development of every
type of species died off, but if this were the case, with millions of
different species over a period of millions of years, shouldn't there be
some examples? With all the archaeological finds of today, should not
someone have discovered a fossilized specimen? There is no credible evidence
that supports the atheist's random development theory of any life form of
any kind.
Life or nature shouts, screams in fact, of a plan and intelligence behind
its development. Simple observation and contemplation thereof, as the
Scriptures suggest, reveal this to be true.
Take a look sometime at a simple form of life such as a blade of grass. Its
mechanical structure or construction alone reveals intelligence behind its
makeup, not to mention the observable phenomenon of its growth and
animation, or life, from a seemingly lifeless or dead seed which contains
all of the instructions for it to become exactly what it is.
Take any seed for that matter: fruit, vegetable, animal or human sperm, each
seed contains within it an exact set of instructions for whatever it is to
grow into. The instructions are exact for an apple, carrot, ape or man. Tell
me, How do you randomly develop such a set of precisely detailed and
specific instructions?
There is the idea of "irreducible complexity" that explains this concept. If
you were walking in the woods one day and came across an F-16 fighter jet,
you would not in a million years consider that the winds and time just blew
it together. Wouldn't that be crazy to think that? But I tell you, a single
sparrow, from a mechanical standpoint alone, is a hundred-fold more
complicated. The F-16 cannot move one inch on its own, let alone fuel
itself, navigate, reproduce, or get off the ground and fly like the sparrow
can. Observation alone tells us that this design is so complex that it could
not have come together through random evolution. There must be a plan behind
its existence, just as there is a plan behind the creation and building of a
fighter jet, or a pocket watch, or any other man-made item. The workings are
so complex that it is irreducible. Each piece could not have come together
and worked so correctly through simple, random acts of evolution. Nor can
the existence of a fighter jet be explained through the idea of survival of
the fittest. Many have heard the example of the moth that camouflages itself
to look like tree bark. The random evolutionists will claim that a few moths
randomly developed the coloring trait. These moths supposedly survived
because they were not eaten by birds, and the moths of the same species with
different coloring died off. Yet, this simple explanation leaves many more
unanswered questions. How did the complex structure of the moth derive from
random evolution in the first place? Did a few proteins throw themselves
together to form this small creature by accident, or was there an
intelligent plan behind the creation of the moth? Undoubtedly, there was a
plan - a blueprint set in motion by God Almighty at the beginning of time.
Consider any notable piece of architecture from the Pyramids to the former
World Trade Center; not for one second would anyone believe that the plans
or blueprints to build one of these mammoth structures were only the result
of throwing some paper, ink and pencils into the air, and when it all came
down, presto, there were the blueprints. Nor would any sane person argue
that over millions of years the building, through the process of trial and
error, developed the skeletal structure, the interior designs, and so on and
eventually formed into a building.
Yet, the blueprints to build either of the mentioned structures pale in
comparison to the instructions, or blueprints, if you will, to make one
viable ant. The atheist, nonetheless, would have us believe that the
instructions or plans to build one of these tiny creatures came about by an
even greater unlikelihood than throwing paper and ink in the air to derive
the Pyramids or the WTC towers!
Take a look at a piece of fruit, a banana or strawberry, for example. Pick
any fruit. Consider how convenient of randomness to have "thought" of that.
Quite an impromptu performance by haphazard happenstance to come up with a
pleasant looking, smelling, tasting and nutritious food for us and other
living creatures to eat, wouldn't you say?
Then, as the Scripture mentions, there is the beauty of it all. From the
flowers in the fields, to the trees in the forests, to the blue oceans
filled with many kinds of colorful life, to the stars that paint the night
sky, to the sunsets that inspire awe … were all of these beautiful pieces of
nature created in an accident started by static electricity?
It would appear that a major role of many of the life forms of this world is
that of aesthetics, to decorate and beautify the earth. How can one explain
that all this happened completely by accidental development?
Up to this point, only concise examples of the observable works of creation
have been addressed, but even with just this brief glimpse, the intelligence
and planning behind it all clearly stands out.
It is further clearly obvious that those who worship the created things
rather than the Creator are also fools.
In summation, four readily obvious facts have been presented, which all lead
us to one inevitable conclusion:
1. By simple observation alone we can see thousands upon thousands of unique
and distinct forms of life, all of which naturally bear after their own
kind, and none of which that show any signs of random crossovers between
different categories of life and evolution or having accidentally evolved
into something else; nor is there any tangible posthumous evidence of any
haphazard development.
2. Observation alone reveals that the habitat and food necessary for the
sustained existence of every life form was provided for. In the case of
Adamic man, all the essential materials for the formation, building, and
management of civilization were provided through nature and their natural
intelligence.
3. Observation alone enables us to see the complexity in the design of even
the simplest and seemingly insignificant forms of life; a complexity far
beyond anything man himself has created, or can logically believe was
possible to create by mere chance.
4. Observation alone unveils the immense beauty in nature, which is in many
instances so inspirational that it defies expression.
This slight glimpse into the openly perceivable design, workings and beauty
of nature tangibly reflects intelligence, planning, and complexity beyond
our comprehension in many cases. Once pondered, a reflection of the
character and conformation of existence of the One Who created it is clearly
seen; for it is in these works that His existence is proclaimed. The
inevitable, inescapable conclusion: Only a fool would say in his heart,
"There is no God."
"For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Divine
Nature, for them to be without excuse" (Romans 1:20 AST).
.
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
09 Dec 2004 05:29:16 AM |
|
|
"Adeimantos" <adeimantos@cox.net> astounded us with:
news:KMNrd.181$Xp.129@lakeread07:
http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0202/atheism.htm
You're a complete fucking idiot.
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 04:50:37 PM |
|
|
"Adeimantos" <adeimantos@cox.net> writes:
http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0202/atheism.htm
"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 13:1 LXX).
The wise man proclaims it to the World.
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
02 Dec 2004 10:55:47 PM |
|
|
"Adeimantos" <adeimantos@cox.net> wrote in
news:KMNrd.181$Xp.129@lakeread07:
http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0202/atheism.htm
<snip>
Dear oh dear.
I think you misunderstand the position of many "non-believers".
It's not that I (we) believe there is no God - the existence of such a God
is currently unproven but that might change tomorrow.
It's quite simply that we *know* the god described in the christian bible
does not exist. Quoting your book doesn't change that I'm afraid.
It's that simple.
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander Arnakis" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
02 Dec 2004 11:34:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:55:47 GMT, "navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net>
wrote:
Dear oh dear.
I think you misunderstand the position of many "non-believers".
It's not that I (we) believe there is no God - the existence of such a God
is currently unproven but that might change tomorrow.
It's quite simply that we *know* the god described in the christian bible
does not exist. Quoting your book doesn't change that I'm afraid.
It's that simple.
Isn't the difference between agnosticism, "weak" atheism, and "strong"
atheism as follows:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
The "weak" atheist doesn't believe there's a God.
The "strong" atheist positively believes there's *no* God?
It seems to me that the reasonableness of these positions is in
inverse ascending order. It's no easier to prove a negative regarding
God than it is to prove a positive. The most "rational" position has
always been agnosticism, because it's not given to us to apprehend the
divine with our normal senses.
Those who believe in a God do so, at base, on an emotional level.
Sometimes a "rational" superstructure is built on this base, but that
doesn't negate what's essentially a matter of faith.
So, it seems to me, theists and atheists are talking right past each
other. Their assumptions are totally different. Once this is
understood, it can be realized that there can be no "winners" or
"losers" in these sorts of discussions.
(I might add that "the god described in the christian bible" is but
one version of a possible theistic God. Don't tar all theists with the
same brush.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 11:25:49 AM |
|
|
Alexander Arnakis <invalid@address.none> writes:
Isn't the difference between agnosticism, "weak" atheism, and "strong"
atheism as follows:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
No. This is a common mistake. The agnostic believes that
knowledge about god is impossible. It's an epistemic belief. It has
nothing to do with what the agnostic believes about gods or gods
themselves, only about whether or not anything in the universe can be
construed as evidentiary and therefore contributory to *knowing* whether
or not a god or gods exist.
The "weak" atheist doesn't believe there's a God.
The weak atheist does not have a belief either way
The "strong" atheist positively believes there's *no* God?
More or less accurate.
So, it seems to me, theists and atheists are talking right past each
other.
True. I've often found it curious why so many theists live
their lives as if strong atheism is true, though.
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 11:37:29 AM |
|
|
Alexander Arnakis <invalid@address.none> wrote in message news:<2jtvq0lekd9or06ct3fgkuht2s5gli42s2@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:55:47 GMT, "navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net>
wrote:
Dear oh dear.
I think you misunderstand the position of many "non-believers".
It's not that I (we) believe there is no God - the existence of such a God
is currently unproven but that might change tomorrow.
It's quite simply that we *know* the god described in the christian bible
does not exist. Quoting your book doesn't change that I'm afraid.
It's that simple.
Isn't the difference between agnosticism, "weak" atheism, and "strong"
atheism as follows:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
The "weak" atheist doesn't believe there's a God.
The "strong" atheist positively believes there's *no* God?
It's not quite as simple as that, because to say "there are no gods
anywhere, no matter how defined" is a different statement from saying
that the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Triune God of
Abraham and Jacob does not exist. The latter is pretty easy to rule
out--the former is impossible.
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
| User: "ernobe" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 06:14:27 PM |
|
|
It's not quite as simple as that, because to say "there are no gods
anywhere, no matter how defined" is a different statement from saying
that the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Triune God of
Abraham and Jacob does not exist. The latter is pretty easy to rule
out--the former is impossible.
What if I say, "no matter what anybody says, there are no gods anywhere,
no matter how defined", at least I am keeping my thoughts to myself, not
trying to tell others what to say or believe. There are things, however,
which people want to say and believe, since childhood, and the evidence
suggests that atheism is not one of them.
--
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
04 Dec 2004 09:46:43 AM |
|
|
ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in news:31cdr2F39de48U1@individual.net:
It's not quite as simple as that, because to say "there are no gods
anywhere, no matter how defined" is a different statement from saying
that the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Triune God of
Abraham and Jacob does not exist. The latter is pretty easy to rule
out--the former is impossible.
What if I say, "no matter what anybody says, there are no gods anywhere,
no matter how defined", at least I am keeping my thoughts to myself, not
trying to tell others what to say or believe. There are things, however,
which people want to say and believe, since childhood, and the evidence
suggests that atheism is not one of them.
Evidence?
You mean when a child is threatened with eternal punishment everyday of
their formative years they grow up with that fear still inprinted in their
minds.
Such mental abuse should be illegal.
gater
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
04 Dec 2004 12:28:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:46:43 GMT, "navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net>
wrote:
ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in news:31cdr2F39de48U1@individual.net:
It's not quite as simple as that, because to say "there are no gods
anywhere, no matter how defined" is a different statement from saying
that the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Triune God of
Abraham and Jacob does not exist. The latter is pretty easy to rule
out--the former is impossible.
What if I say, "no matter what anybody says, there are no gods anywhere,
no matter how defined", at least I am keeping my thoughts to myself, not
trying to tell others what to say or believe. There are things, however,
which people want to say and believe, since childhood, and the evidence
suggests that atheism is not one of them.
Evidence?
You mean when a child is threatened with eternal punishment everyday of
their formative years they grow up with that fear still inprinted in their
minds.
Such mental abuse should be illegal.
Christian are taught that god is all love and because he so loved the
world he gave his only* son. Hence Christians claim they fear god.
If they fear love what do they think of hate?
*Is god impotent now? Was he allowed only one son? Does not
sound very omnipotent to me.
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 06:22:21 PM |
|
|
ernobe wrote:
It's not quite as simple as that, because to say "there are no gods
anywhere, no matter how defined" is a different statement from saying
that the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Triune God of
Abraham and Jacob does not exist. The latter is pretty easy to rule
out--the former is impossible.
What if I say, "no matter what anybody says, there are no gods anywhere,
no matter how defined", at least I am keeping my thoughts to myself, not
trying to tell others what to say or believe. There are things, however,
which people want to say and believe, since childhood, and the evidence
suggests that atheism is not one of them.
Except that atheism is not a belief, "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go one step further than others who are atheist to
unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "ernobe" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 07:25:01 PM |
|
|
Except that atheism is not a belief, "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
The evidence of the existence of gods does not depend on peoples beliefs;
whether they believe in them or not it makes no difference, however, those
who say that absence of belief in their existence can be characterized by
them are implying that they know how the evidence of their existence can be
characterized. Those seeking to become acquainted with the facts are thus
presented with a choice: either they follow those who only pretend to know,
while in reality pursuing their own selfish interests, or they follow those
who seek to become acquainted with the reality of the facts.
--
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
04 Dec 2004 01:04:19 AM |
|
|
In article <1r7sd.186322$HA.82689@attbi_s01>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
ernobe wrote:
It's not quite as simple as that, because to say "there are no gods
anywhere, no matter how defined" is a different statement from saying
that the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Triune God of
Abraham and Jacob does not exist. The latter is pretty easy to rule
out--the former is impossible.
What if I say, "no matter what anybody says, there are no gods anywhere,
no matter how defined", at least I am keeping my thoughts to myself, not
trying to tell others what to say or believe. There are things, however,
which people want to say and believe, since childhood, and the evidence
suggests that atheism is not one of them.
Except that atheism is not a belief
Except for freaks like Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon who believe
that everyone ought to accept that there are no gods, even though there
is no evidence of any such thing.
Huxley says nasty things about those, like Septic X. Troll, the Craven
Capon, who say there are things one ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 09:11:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1r7sd.186322$HA.82689@attbi_s01>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
ernobe wrote:
It's not quite as simple as that, because to say "there are no gods
anywhere, no matter how defined" is a different statement from saying
that the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Triune God of
Abraham and Jacob does not exist. The latter is pretty easy to rule
out--the former is impossible.
What if I say, "no matter what anybody says, there are no gods anywhere,
no matter how defined", at least I am keeping my thoughts to myself, not
trying to tell others what to say or believe. There are things, however,
which people want to say and believe, since childhood, and the evidence
suggests that atheism is not one of them.
Except that atheism is not a belief
It is to Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, who is as much a true
believer in the unproven as any theist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DaveJr" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
04 Dec 2004 12:34:37 AM |
|
|
Atheism is not a religion.
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-189BB7.20115903122004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1r7sd.186322$HA.82689@attbi_s01>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
ernobe wrote:
It's not quite as simple as that, because to say "there are no gods
anywhere, no matter how defined" is a different statement from saying
that the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Triune God of
Abraham and Jacob does not exist. The latter is pretty easy to rule
out--the former is impossible.
What if I say, "no matter what anybody says, there are no gods
anywhere,
no matter how defined", at least I am keeping my thoughts to myself,
not
trying to tell others what to say or believe. There are things,
however,
which people want to say and believe, since childhood, and the
evidence
suggests that atheism is not one of them.
Except that atheism is not a belief
It is to Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, who is as much a true
believer in the unproven as any theist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 11:20:22 PM |
|
|
Hypatia Kosh wrote:
Alexander Arnakis <invalid@address.none> wrote in message
news:<2jtvq0lekd9or06ct3fgkuht2s5gli42s2@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:55:47 GMT, "navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net>
wrote:
Dear oh dear.
I think you misunderstand the position of many "non-believers".
It's not that I (we) believe there is no God - the existence of such a
God is currently unproven but that might change tomorrow.
It's quite simply that we *know* the god described in the christian
bible does not exist. Quoting your book doesn't change that I'm afraid.
It's that simple.
Isn't the difference between agnosticism, "weak" atheism, and "strong"
atheism as follows:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
The "weak" atheist doesn't believe there's a God.
The "strong" atheist positively believes there's *no* God?
It's not quite as simple as that, because to say "there are no gods
anywhere, no matter how defined" is a different statement from saying
that the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Triune God of
Abraham and Jacob does not exist. The latter is pretty easy to rule
out--the former is impossible.
Maybe not.
There are several species of god here.
The god of Abraham and Moses is not the omni-everything god.
For example, god lied to Adam to keep him from eating god's
magic fruits. But God was not omniscient enough to see that
this lie would shortly fail.
But archeaology debunkes these gods. Archeaology has shown
exodus, teh 40 years wandering and such tales did not happen
no Moses, no Joshua. God as embedded in theese tales as a being
that at certain times did this or that at certain places also is
debunked. A mere character in a novel pretending to be history.
The omni-everything god is a Greek invention later adopted
by theology.
This god fails because its attributes create contradictions.
Epicurus posed the problem of evil about 250 BCE.
But this is a maximalist god, it claims the maximum a god can
claim. When it fails, one is forced downwards to lesser gods.
If god cannot do what is impossible, what is illogical, where does logic
come from? Where do the rules and laws of the Universe come from?
This is the one Big Thing theology wants to ignore.
The Logic of the Universe is physics and related heirachies
of rules of the Universe, chemistry, biology andso on.
And it does not seem that these laws allow for disemboddied
intelligences, deities or gods.
The burden of evidence to prove, hard evidence please,
otherwise is definitely on the theist side.
We no longer need little nature god religions to explain why is
there rain, and other details. Those are all gone.
We don't need to explian why there are no gods, just show that
there is no evidence and that the popular schemes are dead and
gone and collapsed.
Really, besides the god of the bible, dead at the hand of archaeology,
and the Greek omni-everything god, dead of self contradiction,
what else is there?
Nothing anybody wants, even the religous fanatics.
Nobody wants to smear themselves with chicken blood and dance
on the dirt floor of a voodoo temple.
Or sacrifice a goat to some little nature god to ask for good crops.
Once you have to abandon the omni-everything god and ask
where do all these rules and laws and logic of the Uinverse we
see come from if not god?, the whole enterprise collapses.
If god cannot do teh impossible, the illogical, because he must
obey logic and the laws of the Universe, we have arrived at that sane
conclusion that any gods must be weak, and not particularly important in
light of what we see from these rules and laws as elucidated by
plain old physics.
There is no longer room for gods that do anything much.
Maybe janitors, or gardners or something.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Agamemnon" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
05 Dec 2004 03:14:41 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:corkfu$mof@library1.airnews.net...
Hypatia Kosh wrote:
Maybe not.
There are several species of god here.
The god of Abraham and Moses is not the omni-everything god.
For example, god lied to Adam to keep him from eating god's
magic fruits. But God was not omniscient enough to see that
this lie would shortly fail.
But archeaology debunkes these gods. Archeaology has shown
exodus, teh 40 years wandering and such tales did not happen
no Moses, no Joshua. God as embedded in theese tales as a being
that at certain times did this or that at certain places also is
debunked. A mere character in a novel pretending to be history.
The omni-everything god is a Greek invention later adopted
by theology.
This god fails because its attributes create contradictions.
Epicurus posed the problem of evil about 250 BCE.
But this is a maximalist god, it claims the maximum a god can
claim. When it fails, one is forced downwards to lesser gods.
If god cannot do what is impossible, what is illogical, where does logic
come from? Where do the rules and laws of the Universe come from?
This is the one Big Thing theology wants to ignore.
The Logic of the Universe is physics and related heirachies
of rules of the Universe, chemistry, biology andso on.
And it does not seem that these laws allow for disemboddied
intelligences, deities or gods.
Actually Quantum Theory DOES allow for Gods and as many as you like since
all possible outcomes are superposed in limbo until an observer makes an
observation and collapses them.
The burden of evidence to prove, hard evidence please,
otherwise is definitely on the theist side.
We no longer need little nature god religions to explain why is
there rain, and other details. Those are all gone.
We don't need to explian why there are no gods, just show that
there is no evidence and that the popular schemes are dead and
gone and collapsed.
Your definition of God is not the same a that of the Greek Gods. The Greek
God were all ancestors and we do not need to show anything about them except
where they were born and where they were buried. This has already been
shown. Look at the Minoan archaeology and you will find the Gods.
Really, besides the god of the bible, dead at the hand of archaeology,
and the Greek omni-everything god, dead of self contradiction,
what else is there?
The Gods of Olympus the ancestor Gods. Read Eusebius Preparation of the
Gospel books 1 and 2.
Nothing anybody wants, even the religous fanatics.
Nobody wants to smear themselves with chicken blood and dance
on the dirt floor of a voodoo temple.
Or sacrifice a goat to some little nature god to ask for good crops.
That is a Victorian invention.
Once you have to abandon the omni-everything god and ask
where do all these rules and laws and logic of the Uinverse we
see come from if not god?, the whole enterprise collapses.
It is not as simple as that. Read Plotinus Enneads and Parmenides by Plato.
If god cannot do teh impossible, the illogical, because he must
obey logic and the laws of the Universe, we have arrived at that sane
conclusion that any gods must be weak, and not particularly important in
light of what we see from these rules and laws as elucidated by
plain old physics.
You are anthropomorphising God and basing "him" on pagan Jewish
bastardisations of Greek philosophy. That is not what the Greek philosophers
did.
There is no longer room for gods that do anything much.
Maybe janitors, or gardners or something.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
02 Dec 2004 11:08:08 PM |
|
|
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:55:47 GMT, "navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net>
wrote:
Dear oh dear.
I think you misunderstand the position of many "non-believers".
It's not that I (we) believe there is no God - the existence of such a God
is currently unproven but that might change tomorrow.
It's quite simply that we *know* the god described in the christian bible
does not exist. Quoting your book doesn't change that I'm afraid.
It's that simple.
Isn't the difference between agnosticism, "weak" atheism, and "strong"
atheism as follows:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
The "weak" atheist doesn't believe there's a God.
The "strong" atheist positively believes there's *no* God?
No. Agnostics say there is no ultimate proof one way or teh other but
some say the preponderance of proof leans one way or the other.
You may then have Atheists who say that though god may not strictly be
disporven, there is no good evidence for god and much against the idea and
they are thus atheists.
The opposite view may be taken by theists.
It seems to me that the reasonableness of these positions is in
inverse ascending order. It's no easier to prove a negative regarding
God than it is to prove a positive. The most "rational" position has
always been agnosticism, because it's not given to us to apprehend the
divine with our normal senses.
It may be easier to prove negatives.
The definition of god has long been creating problems such as the
problem of evil.
Omnipotence turns out to be a self defeating idea that creates puzzles
and paradoxes by its very nature.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 07:32:04 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <2jtvq0lekd9or06ct3fgkuht2s5gli42s2@4ax.com>,
Alexander Arnakis lept out of the bushes shouting:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
That's a colloquial meaning of the word but doesn't fit what Huxley (who
coined the term) said. At least nothing I've read of his fits that.
Huxley actually seems to strike more deeply than atheism. And atheist can
say "I don't believe in those silly god things" and be done with it (may
do just that). Agnosticism (per Huxley) rejects claims of knowledge that
are not based on evidence and reason. It's not just "I don't know," it's
"and neither do you."
There's no conflict between the two at all. Nor can you arrange them in
the "tier" you propose. Agnostics *are atheist. Atheists are generally
agnostic (particularly our ng regulars). And "strong" atheism is probably
more properly referred to as an agnostic atheism.
And the whole "weak/strong" thing as far as atheism goes is, in my
opinion, silly. *Atheism is simply being without belief in any gods.
That's it. Anything beyond that isn't part of "atheism" per se. It's
a position *of an atheist...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 07:59:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 07:32:04 -0600 in alt.atheism, Mark K. Bilbo
("Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
In our last episode <2jtvq0lekd9or06ct3fgkuht2s5gli42s2@4ax.com>,
Alexander Arnakis lept out of the bushes shouting:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
That's a colloquial meaning of the word but doesn't fit what Huxley (who
coined the term) said. At least nothing I've read of his fits that.
Huxley actually seems to strike more deeply than atheism. And atheist can
say "I don't believe in those silly god things" and be done with it (may
do just that). Agnosticism (per Huxley) rejects claims of knowledge that
are not based on evidence and reason. It's not just "I don't know," it's
"and neither do you."
There's no conflict between the two at all. Nor can you arrange them in
the "tier" you propose. Agnostics *are atheist. Atheists are generally
agnostic (particularly our ng regulars). And "strong" atheism is probably
more properly referred to as an agnostic atheism.
And the whole "weak/strong" thing as far as atheism goes is, in my
opinion, silly. *Atheism is simply being without belief in any gods.
That's it. Anything beyond that isn't part of "atheism" per se. It's
a position *of an atheist...
Hummm.... "Yes and no". And this is more an observation than an
argument!
As I keep saying, I don't think any atheist is entirely "weak/strong".
This is to say that - and I can really only judge from what I
experience and think and what I see here in aa - *but* it seems to me
that we're (or should be) "strong" atheists with respect to some God
concepts, "weak" atheists with respect to others, and agnostic with
respect to still others.
I think the "weak/strong" definitional concept is useful, but only
with respect to specific God concepts. I am - for example - strongly
atheist with respect to the OT God, weakly atheist with respect to,
say, Deist type Gods, and agnostic towards others.
That said, the "agnostic" concept is interesting in some ways -
because the concept can be viewed in many ways the most interesting to
my mind is the one that holds that God definitions are incoherent
which may mean that they are meaningless. Which IMO is not quite the
same as saying they're untrue because they're self-contradictory.
But *that said* as you say if one does not hold a God belief, then one
*is* an atheist. But it is occasionally necessary to go into the
technicalities of the position, don't you think?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 08:52:08 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <2oq0r0pnved72mndhuj6bmqlnnqdnrpdon@4ax.com>, Therion
Ware lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 07:32:04 -0600 in alt.atheism, Mark K. Bilbo
("Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In our last episode <2jtvq0lekd9or06ct3fgkuht2s5gli42s2@4ax.com>,
Alexander Arnakis lept out of the bushes shouting:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
That's a colloquial meaning of the word but doesn't fit what Huxley (who
coined the term) said. At least nothing I've read of his fits that.
Huxley actually seems to strike more deeply than atheism. And atheist can
say "I don't believe in those silly god things" and be done with it (may
do just that). Agnosticism (per Huxley) rejects claims of knowledge that
are not based on evidence and reason. It's not just "I don't know," it's
"and neither do you."
There's no conflict between the two at all. Nor can you arrange them in
the "tier" you propose. Agnostics *are atheist. Atheists are generally
agnostic (particularly our ng regulars). And "strong" atheism is probably
more properly referred to as an agnostic atheism.
And the whole "weak/strong" thing as far as atheism goes is, in my
opinion, silly. *Atheism is simply being without belief in any gods.
That's it. Anything beyond that isn't part of "atheism" per se. It's a
position *of an atheist...
Hummm.... "Yes and no". And this is more an observation than an argument!
As I keep saying, I don't think any atheist is entirely "weak/strong".
This is to say that - and I can really only judge from what I experience
and think and what I see here in aa - *but* it seems to me that we're (or
should be) "strong" atheists with respect to some God concepts, "weak"
atheists with respect to others, and agnostic with respect to still
others.
I think the "weak/strong" definitional concept is useful, but only with
respect to specific God concepts. I am - for example - strongly atheist
with respect to the OT God, weakly atheist with respect to, say, Deist
type Gods, and agnostic towards others.
I think that's true. But I think creating these other "categories" just
muddies the water. I'm a reductionist. <g>
It still seems to me that the very broad consensus is atheism is being
sans belief in any deities. You get beyond that and, like everything else
with atheists, you end up trying to herd cats.
And I don't know we could come up with a good definition of "weak" or
"strong" because they're so variable. I don't find the terms to be useful.
You say "strong atheist" and that means what? Well, that guy doesn't
believe in that deity and that lady over that way thinks all deities are
impossible but that bunch over there think deities of the type X are
illogical and cannot exist but over there...
That said, the "agnostic" concept is interesting in some ways - because
the concept can be viewed in many ways the most interesting to my mind is
the one that holds that God definitions are incoherent which may mean that
they are meaningless. Which IMO is not quite the same as saying they're
untrue because they're self-contradictory.
But *that said* as you say if one does not hold a God belief, then one
*is* an atheist. But it is occasionally necessary to go into the
technicalities of the position, don't you think?
Well, as I said, I'm a reductionist. Atheism, itself, is being without
belief in deities. Anything beyond that is what atheists *do, not so much
what they *are...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 12:30:36 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
< snip >
I'm a reductionist. <g>
Me, too! Luckily, theists are low in carbs, although they are pretty
fatty in the cranial region.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
04 Dec 2004 12:35:37 AM |
|
|
Tukla Ratte wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
< snip >
I'm a reductionist. <g>
Me, too! Luckily, theists are low in carbs, although they are pretty
fatty in the cranial region.
Yeah! Get on the Atkins Diet!
Eat the flesh of their leader (proteins!) and drink his blood (antioxidant!)
It's catholic, it's fresh, it's hip!
< snip >
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 09:11:48 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 07:32:04 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <2jtvq0lekd9or06ct3fgkuht2s5gli42s2@4ax.com>,
Alexander Arnakis lept out of the bushes shouting:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
That's a colloquial meaning of the word but doesn't fit what Huxley (who
coined the term) said. At least nothing I've read of his fits that.
Words change. Huxley may have coined the term, but it now means what
2jtv0lekd90rblah, blah, blah stated: Not knowing whether or not
there's a God.
You can repeat this Huxley cut and paste over and over, but in the
21st century, there's a common agreement on the term 'agnostic' and
Huxley doesn't even care enough to turn over in his grave.
james, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 08:22:35 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <3d01r05c88kq99fqeirhi1b7sks13kd604@4ax.com>,
RainLover lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 07:32:04 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <2jtvq0lekd9or06ct3fgkuht2s5gli42s2@4ax.com>,
Alexander Arnakis lept out of the bushes shouting:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
That's a colloquial meaning of the word but doesn't fit what Huxley (who
coined the term) said. At least nothing I've read of his fits that.
Words change. Huxley may have coined the term, but it now means what
2jtv0lekd90rblah, blah, blah stated: Not knowing whether or not there's a
God.
You can repeat this Huxley cut and paste over and over, but in the 21st
century, there's a common agreement on the term 'agnostic' and Huxley
doesn't even care enough to turn over in his grave.
Then "atheism" means what theists say it means? There's common agreement
on the meanings they have assigned to the word.
If "agnosticism" really has been reduced to "duh, I dunno" then there's
really no point to the word.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
06 Dec 2004 08:20:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 20:22:35 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
That's a colloquial meaning of the word but doesn't fit what Huxley (who
coined the term) said. At least nothing I've read of his fits that.
Words change. Huxley may have coined the term, but it now means what
2jtv0lekd90rblah, blah, blah stated: Not knowing whether or not there's a
God.
You can repeat this Huxley cut and paste over and over, but in the 21st
century, there's a common agreement on the term 'agnostic' and Huxley
doesn't even care enough to turn over in his grave.
Then "atheism" means what theists say it means? There's common agreement
on the meanings they have assigned to the word.
If "agnosticism" really has been reduced to "duh, I dunno" then there's
really no point to the word.
You can add the insults to the current definition of agnosticism if
you want, but it only reflects poorly on you.
"A-theism" is very self-explainatory, even if some Christians like to
insult atheists by saying it means "anti-god" or "anti-christian".
The "A" says exactly what it means.
No matter what it's origins, in the 21st century, 'Agnostic' no means
not sure about the existance of a god or gods... Someone who can see
some good points on BOTH sides of the arguement or someone who is
simply confused about it. It doesn't make one dumb to be unsure or
undecided.... It definately doesn't make someone stupid for not
rushing to a decision about such serious matters as eternity and the
meaning of life.
There are many Brilliant people who are agnostic, so for you to
generalize them into the "Duh, I don't know" category is just wrong.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Agamemnon" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
06 Dec 2004 02:16:22 PM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:95q8r0t4ob364ch0guijsb1d2sviard46b@4ax.com...
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 20:22:35 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
That's a colloquial meaning of the word but doesn't fit what Huxley (who
coined the term) said. At least nothing I've read of his fits that.
Words change. Huxley may have coined the term, but it now means what
2jtv0lekd90rblah, blah, blah stated: Not knowing whether or not there's
a
God.
You can repeat this Huxley cut and paste over and over, but in the 21st
century, there's a common agreement on the term 'agnostic' and Huxley
doesn't even care enough to turn over in his grave.
Then "atheism" means what theists say it means? There's common agreement
on the meanings they have assigned to the word.
If "agnosticism" really has been reduced to "duh, I dunno" then there's
really no point to the word.
You can add the insults to the current definition of agnosticism if
you want, but it only reflects poorly on you.
"A-theism" is very self-explainatory, even if some Christians like to
insult atheists by saying it means "anti-god" or "anti-christian".
The "A" says exactly what it means.
No matter what it's origins, in the 21st century, 'Agnostic' no means
not sure about the existance of a god or gods... Someone who can see
A VERY STUPID DEFINITION since in Latin in means exactly the OPPOSITE !
some good points on BOTH sides of the arguement or someone who is
simply confused about it. It doesn't make one dumb to be unsure or
undecided.... It definately doesn't make someone stupid for not
rushing to a decision about such serious matters as eternity and the
meaning of life.
There are many Brilliant people who are agnostic, so for you to
generalize them into the "Duh, I don't know" category is just wrong.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Godfrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 05:47:08 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 05:34:48 GMT, Alexander Arnakis
<invalid@address.none> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:55:47 GMT, "navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net>
wrote:
Dear oh dear.
I think you misunderstand the position of many "non-believers".
It's not that I (we) believe there is no God - the existence of such a God
is currently unproven but that might change tomorrow.
It's quite simply that we *know* the god described in the christian bible
does not exist. Quoting your book doesn't change that I'm afraid.
It's that simple.
Isn't the difference between agnosticism, "weak" atheism, and "strong"
atheism as follows:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
The "weak" atheist doesn't believe there's a God.
The "strong" atheist positively believes there's *no* God?
It seems to me that the reasonableness of these positions is in
inverse ascending order. It's no easier to prove a negative regarding
God than it is to prove a positive. The most "rational" position has
always been agnosticism, because it's not given to us to apprehend the
divine with our normal senses.
Given by whom? No, you're missing the point of atheism. Agnosticism
is not the more rational of the two, only the more noncommittal.
For you to say, Alexander, that "it's no easier to prove a negative
regarding God than it is to prove a positive" is a bit callow- it is
always impossible to prove a negative when the proponents of the
"positive" assert an outlandish claim.
For instance, what of I were to tell you that I am actually not human
at all but a magically animated garden gnome responding to your post
on via a subether connection from a small chamber near the Earth's
core, which is made of honey. There are two general responses to this
claim:
1. Really? Wow!
2. *****.
I assume you chose option 2, as would anybody with more than a
single-digit I.Q.. And yet you did this in spite of the fact that a)
you cannot physically travel to the Earth's core to disprove my last
two claims, b) while there is no such thing known to science as a
subether connection you cannot prove that I do not have one and c) you
cannot conclusively prove the non-existence of magically-animated
garden gnomes.
You can, however, point to overwhelming contradictory evidence: the
scientific implausibility of anything but molten rock and mineral
being down near the Earth's core and the lack of any evidence of a
subether connection or an animated garden gnome in the real world. My
claim is highly implausible, and assuming you didn't fall for option 1
you have two basic positions:
A. His claims don't seem credible, but I cannot disprove them.
Therefore my position is that I'm going to take no position on the
matter.
B. This guy's completely full of *****. He's not a garden gnome, he's
a lunatic.
While option A is certainly defensible it is nonetheless obvious that
option B is the truth.
If I continue with my absurd claims, twisting all the evidence you
present to fit in with my little fantasy, you will eventually have
only one avenue of recourse; you will have to challenge me to prove
my claims. This is reasonable since I am asking you to rely on
nonsensical claims and have not presented any evidence to support
them.
This is the position of the atheist: we know that the belief in gods
is simply a carryover from primitive man. We know that the idea of an
omnipotent being is really just a product of strong indoctrination and
stems from an innate need for comfort, among many other things.
We know the Great Gnome doesn't exist- not in the sky, not in heaven
and not in a chamber near the Earth's core. But we cannot prove it
any more than we can prove that the Earth's core is not made of honey.
It's simply a matter of looking at the matter rationally, rationally
analyzing the evidence available to us and arriving at a rational
conclusion.
It is that very rationality which separates us from theists, who
choose to cling to their indoctrination without regard for the
obvious, without engaging in rationality except in order to build
"support" for their own wild assertions.
To equate these two positions is silly. True, neither position is
provable, but ours is infinitely more tenable.
-Godfrey
"Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear."
-Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 11:43:07 AM |
|
|
Godfrey <no@address.provided> wrote in message news:<2nj0r0t8nmidr4eouifjle3rg5fdmk5dkq@4ax.com>...
To equate these two positions is silly. True, neither position is
provable, but ours is infinitely more tenable.
Agreed. There is no practical reason to believe in god, or to worry
about the possibility of the very unlikely--and unevinced--suddenly
showing up.
-Hy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 02:26:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 05:34:48 GMT, Alexander Arnakis <invalid@address.none> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:55:47 GMT, "navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net>
wrote:
Dear oh dear.
I think you misunderstand the position of many "non-believers".
It's not that I (we) believe there is no God - the existence of such a God
is currently unproven but that might change tomorrow.
It's quite simply that we *know* the god described in the christian bible
does not exist. Quoting your book doesn't change that I'm afraid.
It's that simple.
Isn't the difference between agnosticism, "weak" atheism, and "strong"
atheism as follows:
The agnostic doesn't know whether or not there's a God.
The "weak" atheist doesn't believe there's a God.
The "strong" atheist positively believes there's *no* God?
It seems to me that the reasonableness of these positions is in
inverse ascending order. It's no easier to prove a negative regarding
God than it is to prove a positive. The most "rational" position has
always been agnosticism, because it's not given to us to apprehend the
divine with our normal senses.
Those who believe in a God do so, at base, on an emotional level.
Sometimes a "rational" superstructure is built on this base, but that
doesn't negate what's essentially a matter of faith.
The christian god is an impossibility, like a three sided circle.
That doesn't say anything about the possibility of other gods although
they generally fall into either the same logical impossibility or the god
of the gaps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander Arnakis" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: The Religion of Fools |
03 Dec 2004 05:11:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:26:03 -0600, TCS
<The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
The christian god is an impossibility, like a three sided circle.
That doesn't say anything about the possibility of other gods although
they generally fall into either the same logical impossibility or the god
of the gaps.
Your fallacy is in trying to apprehend the "Christian God" in logical
terms. As I tried to point out earlier, belief in a God is not a
logical proposition -- it's basically an emotional response. But we
shouldn't denigrate or scoff at emotions -- after all, they're just as
much a part of the human condition as is logic.
In utilitarian terms, it doesn't do much good to belittle others'
sincerely-held beliefs, as irrational as they seem. Theists should
stop trying to "convert" atheists, and vice versa, and instead both
groups should focus on things upon which they might be able to agree
(such as ethical works).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
