"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.21c79387946dc23f98ad2a@216.196.97.136...

In article <d-
WdnVYGQNqPp8DanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@comcast.com>, Pmb
said...

Have you ever read a book on apologetics?

Far too many.

The purpose of such books is to provide the reader
with such evidence/reason.

These days, the purpose of such books is to assure the
faithful that reason supports their religious beliefs.

Most modern apologetic arguments are so poorly
constructed -- or so downright ridiculous -- that only
those convinced of the conclusions beforehand (or
those who are just gullible) can grant them more than
a frown. A perfect example may be found in Josh
McDowell's train-wreck of apologetics, "Evidence That
Demands a Verdict." A person would be greatly burdened
if he were charged find a book which better
demonstrates how *not* to defend Christianity, how not
to conduct scholarly research, than McDowell's. It's a
primer on fallacy and faulty reasoning. Yet many
Christians seem to think the book contains gold.

Question; why would you require proof

You mean evidence, don't you?

The person who posed a question to me asked for "proof." I asked he why he'd
require proof/.

of God when even the laws of physics can't be proved?

Hmm. Quite aside from your apparent confusion
regarding the notion of proof in science, ...

Where did you get the idea that I'm confused regasrding the notion of proof
in science? I'm stated what any decsent scientist knows to be true, i.e.
that one cannot arrive at "proof" through scientific means. I recommend the
first section of a physics/relativity text by Fritz Rohrlich to explain the
situation. See
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/ref/rohrlich_ch_01.pdf

I studied physics and obtained a BA from Merrimack College in physics where
I then headed to grad school at Northeastern University which I studied
graduate courses such as a year of grad level quantum theory, and a semester
in each of the topics of gradute level courses in mechanics and
electrodynamics. As an undergrad I spent a great deal of time learning about
the philosophy of physics which included countless discussions on the topic
with my physics advisor as well as taking a course in the philosophy of
science. I believe that if there is any confusion on this it is on your
side.
there

remains your curious implication that God's existence
is more easily demonstrated than is, say, the
acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the
earth.

I never made such a claim and never held such a thought. Nothing in my posts
here would suggest that if read according to the intent at which I wrote
these posts.

Well then: go ahead with your demonstration.

What demonstration? I came here only to ask for a definition of atheism.
Nothing more as of yet. Where did you get the idea I had some sort of
"demonstration" or a willingness to argue for the existance of God. I'm not
hear for that. I'm hear to study atheism itself.

Pete

"Richo" <m.richardso...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:40bdc0c8-1c95-42d0-a507-cf0a3cc145e2@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 11, 12:06 am, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:

"G-Ride" <gride42nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:5s44bcF17e2jfU1@mid.individual.net...

snip

Question; why would you
require proof of God when even the laws of physics can't be proved?

I think "proof" is a rather poor choice of word.

In his case it was a deliberate choice. He needs to conflate "evidence"
with "prove", and he has done it repeatedly.

"Richo" <m.richardson61@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:40bdc0c8-1c95-42d0-a507-cf0a3cc145e2@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 11, 12:06 am, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:

"G-Ride" <gride42nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:5s44bcF17e2jfU1@mid.individual.net...

snip

Question; why would you
require proof of God when even the laws of physics can't be proved?

I think "proof" is a rather poor choice of word.

In his case it was a deliberate choice. He needs to conflate "evidence"
with "prove", and he has done it repeatedly.

snip.

"Richo" <m.richardson61@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40bdc0c8-1c95-42d0-a507-cf0a3cc145e2@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 11, 12:06 am, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:

"G-Ride" <gride42nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:5s44bcF17e2jfU1@mid.individual.net...

"Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:3IydnWqn2YzyNcHanZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@comcast.com...

I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the
term "Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an
atheist,
then what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If
you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the
two definitions given below

(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -

Thank you

Pete

The most basic definition of an atheist is someone who lacks a belief
in
any gods.

Most folks here divide atheists (and thus themselves) into two
categories:
'strong' and 'weak'. Strong atheists would match up with your #1
definition above. Weak atheists would identify with #2.

I consider myself a 'weak' atheist in that I don't believe in any gods.
Unless I'm in casual conversation, I don't claim that no gods exist. I
don't believe they exist, but I still leave room, generally, for the
possibility.

I would cease being an atheist if positive proof of a god were
presented.

Have you ever read a book on apologetics? The purpose of such books is to
provide the reader with such evidence/reason.

They don't succeed.

May I assume that you're basing that on experience? Perhaps the intent of
reading those kinds of books is to seek "proof" where no such proof was ever
intended.

I'll be buying such a book soon (perhaps tonight) so that I can
see if there are any arguements that I'm unaware of that may bring answers
to lingering questions. Lack of sucsess will not beinterpreted by me as
indicating that I should become an atheist though.

I was an atheist for many
years, before college that is.

When I abandoned atheism I turned to
agnostisism. Then to a partial belief.

Such books only seem reasonable to those that
already believe - if they don't look to critically at what is
presented.

Actually I believe that is the purpose of such books. Perhaps also that the
best arguements are contained in these books.

But again, if the reader is
looking for "proof" then it is unreasonable for them to expect to find proof
the existance of God.

I know that you can't arrive at proofs in science so I
don't expect to everr read a proof either way.

I know of several former believers who left their faith because they
started studying apologetics with a open and questioning mind and the
poverty and weakness of the arguments used started them onto the path
of apostasy.

Interesting.

Question; why would you
require proof of God when even the laws of physics can't be proved?

I think "proof" is a rather poor choice of word.

Me too. That's why I challenged the person who made that claim.

Absolute proof of anything outside mathematics is impossible - and no
reasonable person requires absolute proof of anything before belief.
What most people require is sufficient evidence or reason to believe.

I'm glad to hear that you're open minded enough to understand that.

A word about science and proof:
The Laws of Physics are not proved and no one expects them to be
proved.
They are formal statements of general observations - people notice
that when you carefully measure the momentum of a system of particles
that momentum is always conserved.
If you can find an example when the "Law of conservation of Momentum"
is broken then you look very very closely - because its just something
that is never observed. Usually when you *think* the law has been
broken you find you made an error in your measurement or observation.

Yes. I'm aware of all this. I'm a scientist by education.

If you HAVEN'T made an error then the Law ceases to be a Law and you
have to come up with a new law which includes all the old observations
and the new observations.

Which, for example, occured when momentum conservation was alterted to
conform to relativistic theory. A factor of gamma in front of the classical
momomentum made the conservation of momentum possible once again.

So physics and all other hard sciences progresses not by PROVING
things but by finding "disproofs" of your best current theory.
Science progresses by repeatedly testing the best ideas we have and
seeing where they break down - where they go wrong.
The best ideas - the ones that survive centuries of testing and
observation without breaking get called "Laws" - but they are all just
provisional theories - or some of them may hold forever - we don't
ever know which it is.

Sorry some people are giving you a tough reception - people get a bit
tired of answering the same questions over and over.

I was unaware that this question was an FAQ. Thanks for letting me know.

To others: Please note that I came here to try to understand/learn the
atheist point of view. I tired this before but I was recieved by a lot of
flames for assuming the dictionary definition of "atheist." I took out a
book from the Library called "Why Atheism," by George H. Smith, Prometheus
Books (2000). It seems like a very nice book, one which I may buy just to
read if over several times and to have it for reference purposes. Has anyone
ever heard of or read this book? If you're an atheist I believe you might
like it.

It makes 'em cranky. I don't think you are a Troll.

Thanks for your understanding Richo. I am by no means a troll. I hope people
in this group understand that. I actually believe that the rational atheist
would recommend the believer to hear out their arguements and beliefs and,
in this case, textual material so that the believer can understand them
deeper and they're beliefs better. That is why I'm hear. But I needed to see
a poll of this newsgroup as far as how many people consider themselves as
either positive and negative atheists, if I understand the terminology of
course. I'm using the book I mentioned as a source of terminology and a
guide to atheism.

I'm also interested in discussing atheism by a well educated atheist. I.e.
by this I meant such a person who has no religious beliefs and has read
several books on the subject to broaden his mind. An example would be books
written by Paul Davies. His home page is at -
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/pdavies.html. Davies is a theoretical
physicist and cosmologist who now works in asttrobiology. Links to some of
his books and published scientific articles can be found through the link
above. This is a mere example of the kind of literature I'm thinking of.
While I myself take on this challenge I'm curious as to whether others do.
Especially atheists. For me such studies are a path to truth, and not a path
to what I already accept as true. It is truth which I seek, nothing else.

Pete

I was recieved by a lot of
flames for assuming the dictionary definition of "atheist.