| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2006 11:08:15 PM |
| Object: |
Is Atheism viable? |
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in
all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate
any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual
credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in
which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed
life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at
all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being
a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God'
s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there
is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At
best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God
so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because
the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At
best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented
in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there
may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an
agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 02:47:21 PM |
|
|
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723186.644813.227190@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
It is unlikely. If there were no atheist societies in 1912 or thereabouts
when Durkenhein did his survey, it is most unlikely that there would have
been any in deep prehistory. Most primitive societies don't have
intellectual dissidents.
Again you make the mistake of trying to claim that if there were no
atheist societies, one should also assume have been no atheists.
Consider the attitudes towards atheists today; there is a great deal of
motivation to keep one's lack of belief hidden.
I'm not making that mistake. I am claiming that most primitive societies
don't have intellectual dissidents. Unless you can prove me wrong on this,
then really there's a powerful case that I'm right.
You can of course always claim that things were different in the
paleolithic, and we cannot absolutely prove you wrong. But it becomes sheer
fantasy.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
02 Oct 2006 12:38:16 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723186.644813.227190@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
It is unlikely. If there were no atheist societies in 1912 or thereabouts
when Durkenhein did his survey, it is most unlikely that there would have
been any in deep prehistory. Most primitive societies don't have
intellectual dissidents.
Again you make the mistake of trying to claim that if there were no
atheist societies, one should also assume have been no atheists.
Consider the attitudes towards atheists today; there is a great deal of
motivation to keep one's lack of belief hidden.
I'm not making that mistake. I am claiming that most primitive societies
don't have intellectual dissidents.
And you ignored my point that from the dawn of man, announcing one's
atheism to a superstitious group could be dangerous to one's health.
Intellectual dissident does not equal atheist, and neither does atheist
equal intellectual dissident. "It is unlikely. If there were no
atheist societies in 1912 or thereabouts when Durkenhein did his
survey, it is most unlikely that there would have been any in deep
prehistory." You appear at this point to be trying to assert
communist=atheist=intellectual dissident=marxist.
Unless you can prove me wrong on this,
then really there's a powerful case that I'm right.
Keep wishing. If I can't prove you wrong (and if there's anyone unable
to do it, it's going to be me), all that means is that I haven't proved
you wrong; it doesn't affect the validity of your argument.
You can of course always claim that things were different in the
paleolithic, and we cannot absolutely prove you wrong. But it becomes sheer
fantasy.
As does your claim.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A-Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 03:36:53 PM |
|
|
JessHC wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"A-Man" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:d_-dnaQkr7F7n4PYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
If you are not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were
atheists, so they could point to the source of their ideas. ...
Ex-squeeze me? Atheism has been around since
the dawn of man. Marxism has been around since
the dawn of Marx. Methinks you're confused.
Durkenheim did a survey of religious practise at the dawn of the tweniteth
century and found not a single example of an atheist society. You could
argue things changed in the intervening hundred years.
You statement isn't really true, except that, yes, we can find some Greek
philosophers or other isolated individuals who without absurdity could be
described as "atheists". When you look closely you usually find that they
did not disbeleive in quite the same way as the modern atheist.
How does your assertion there hasn't been an atheist society disprove
the claim that atheism "has been around since the dawn of man"? Do you
claim to know the thoughts of, say, cro-magnon people?
If he's friends with Roger, the answer's yes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A-Man" |
|
| Title: Atheism a religious practice? (Was:Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
30 Sep 2006 03:32:50 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"A-Man" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:d_-dnaQkr7F7n4PYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
If you are not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were
atheists, so they could point to the source of their ideas. ...
Ex-squeeze me? Atheism has been around since
the dawn of man. Marxism has been around since
the dawn of Marx. Methinks you're confused.
Durkenheim did a survey of religious practise at the dawn of the tweniteth
century and found not a single example of an atheist society.
You'd probably have just as much trouble finding
an "agnostic society", but it doesn't mean that
agnostics don't exist. Your criteria seems to be
if something has a society build around it, it
can be considered theological position, but, if
not, it can't be? That's novel. It's also very
wrong. And while we're on the subject of things
you're wrong about, atheism's not a "religious
practice". Where do you come up with this stuff?
You could
argue things changed in the intervening hundred years.
You statement isn't really true, except that, yes, we can find some Greek
philosophers or other isolated individuals who without absurdity could be
described as "atheists". When you look closely you usually find that they
did not disbeleive in quite the same way as the modern atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism a religious practice? (Was:Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
30 Sep 2006 07:11:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:32:50 -0600, A-Man <a@man.com> wrote:
- Refer: <g6SdnSJ7HIvuSYPYnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@adelphia.com>
Malcolm wrote:
"A-Man" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:d_-dnaQkr7F7n4PYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
If you are not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were
atheists, so they could point to the source of their ideas. ...
Ex-squeeze me? Atheism has been around since
the dawn of man. Marxism has been around since
the dawn of Marx. Methinks you're confused.
Durkenheim did a survey of religious practise at the dawn of the tweniteth
century and found not a single example of an atheist society.
You'd probably have just as much trouble finding
an "agnostic society", but it doesn't mean that
agnostics don't exist. Your criteria seems to be
if something has a society build around it, it
can be considered theological position, but, if
not, it can't be? That's novel. It's also very
wrong. And while we're on the subject of things
you're wrong about, atheism's not a "religious
practice". Where do you come up with this stuff?
:
A copy of "The Watchtower" that a visitor left in his padded cell, no
doubt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 12:32:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:39:44 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
<3fednW9pmeOaaIDYRVnyig@bt.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
once again, you snip so you can provide a dishonest answer. Of course,
anyone who has read any of your posts is used to your deceit, but, I
suppose, you are hoping to catch someone or other in your fraudulent
trap. Do as you like. You are the one who claims to be holding to some
morality that is not derived from the society around you. Apparently,
you have chosen a very corrupt morality indeed.
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of Jesus.
Really? Did Jesus teach that it was better to go to war against your
fellow citizen than free slaves? Did He teach that it was right to treat
the descendants of slaves as second-class citizens? The people who did
this claim that they were Christian.
Jesus's morality was not followed by that many Christians and a similar
morality is followed by many who know nothing about Jesus's teachings.
Granted these may be filtered by interpretation, and the interpretation will
most surely be influenced by the moral climate of the age, but not to the
extent that Jesus's words are totally misrepresented and ear no relationship
to what He actually taught.
But you still have to show that there is anything unique about it,
compared to the teachings of others.
If youa re not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It used
to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were atheists,
I don't have any reason to accept that assertion.
so they could point to the source of their ideas. We don't have a Marxist
regular on arcrc. The others seem to have difficulty explaining where their
ideas of morality come from, so it is not unreasonable to assume that they
are derived without much reflection from newspapers and schoolrooms and
company human resource departments.
Much as the people who call themselves Christian do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 02:43:18 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:39:44 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
<3fednW9pmeOaaIDYRVnyig@bt.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
once again, you snip so you can provide a dishonest answer. Of course,
anyone who has read any of your posts is used to your deceit, but, I
suppose, you are hoping to catch someone or other in your fraudulent
trap. Do as you like. You are the one who claims to be holding to some
morality that is not derived from the society around you. Apparently,
you have chosen a very corrupt morality indeed.
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of
Jesus.
Really? Did Jesus teach that it was better to go to war against your
fellow citizen than free slaves? Did He teach that it was right to treat
the descendants of slaves as second-class citizens? The people who did
this claim that they were Christian.
Atrheists are not very subtle debaters. they think the technique is to
refute everything the theist says, no matter how unexcpetional.
Christians derive their moral ideas from the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus's morality was not followed by that many Christians and a similar
morality is followed by many who know nothing about Jesus's teachings.
Granted these may be filtered by interpretation, and the interpretation
will
most surely be influenced by the moral climate of the age, but not to the
extent that Jesus's words are totally misrepresented and ear no
relationship
to what He actually taught.
And I answer your objection here.
But you still have to show that there is anything unique about it,
compared to the teachings of others.
Sure. As Christians we have to show that Jesu has a status that Mohammed,
Socrates, Buddha did not. But that wasn't the issue. The question is, "where
do your moral ideas derive from". For the Christian the answer is "From
theteachings of Jesus". \Fir the atheist the answer is ? well that was what
Roger was fishing for.
If youa re not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used
to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were
atheists,
I don't have any reason to accept that assertion.
It is a very unexceptional statement of historical fact. Until the collapse
of Communism there were an enormous number of people in the world who
described themselves as Marxist and who were atheists. They outnumbered the
non-Marxist atheists. However if you asked them "form where do you obtian
your moral ideas" they could have answered "from the teachings of Marx".
Because you don't understnad the basic principles of intllectual debate, you
think you need to refute everything that is said, so the discussion cannot
go anywhere.
so they could point to the source of their ideas. We don't have a Marxist
regular on arcrc. The others seem to have difficulty explaining where
their
ideas of morality come from, so it is not unreasonable to assume that they
are derived without much reflection from newspapers and schoolrooms and
company human resource departments.
Much as the people who call themselves Christian do.
Again, a contradiction with nothing to back it up.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 03:29:59 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:39:44 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
<3fednW9pmeOaaIDYRVnyig@bt.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
once again, you snip so you can provide a dishonest answer. Of course,
anyone who has read any of your posts is used to your deceit, but, I
suppose, you are hoping to catch someone or other in your fraudulent
trap. Do as you like. You are the one who claims to be holding to some
morality that is not derived from the society around you. Apparently,
you have chosen a very corrupt morality indeed.
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of
Jesus.
Really? Did Jesus teach that it was better to go to war against your
fellow citizen than free slaves? Did He teach that it was right to treat
the descendants of slaves as second-class citizens? The people who did
this claim that they were Christian.
Atrheists are not very subtle debaters. they think the technique is to
refute everything the theist says, no matter how unexcpetional.
Should debate be conducted in another manner? If you claim your
morality is derived from Jesus, and your holy text explicitly describes
your Jesus doing or saying something immoral, your position is
questionable.
Christians derive their moral ideas from the teachings of Jesus.
Why don't you specify what you think those teachings are.
Jesus's morality was not followed by that many Christians and a similar
morality is followed by many who know nothing about Jesus's teachings.
Granted these may be filtered by interpretation, and the interpretation
will
most surely be influenced by the moral climate of the age, but not to the
extent that Jesus's words are totally misrepresented and ear no
relationship
to what He actually taught.
And I answer your objection here.
But you still have to show that there is anything unique about it,
compared to the teachings of others.
Sure. As Christians we have to show that Jesu has a status that Mohammed,
Socrates, Buddha did not. But that wasn't the issue. The question is, "where
do your moral ideas derive from". For the Christian the answer is "From
theteachings of Jesus". \Fir the atheist the answer is ? well that was what
Roger was fishing for.
But that isn't true. Christians derive their morality from their
society in almost exactly the same way atheists do. You aren't allowed
to stone someone to death for wearing the wrong clothes or being
disobedient to your parents, for example. The difference is, most
atheists wouldn't be so violent and hateful, even if the law permitted
it. There have been any number of people claimng to be christian
posting in alt.atheism boasting that the only thing keeping them from
going on a rampage is this undefined "christian morality."
If youa re not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used
to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were
atheists,
I don't have any reason to accept that assertion.
It is a very unexceptional statement of historical fact. Until the collapse
of Communism there were an enormous number of people in the world who
described themselves as Marxist and who were atheists. They outnumbered the
non-Marxist atheists. However if you asked them "form where do you obtian
your moral ideas" they could have answered "from the teachings of Marx".
Because you don't understnad the basic principles of intllectual debate, you
think you need to refute everything that is said, so the discussion cannot
go anywhere.
Gee, I thought the basic principles of intellectual debate meant that
if someone asked you to support your assertion, you either did so or
dropped the subject.
so they could point to the source of their ideas. We don't have a Marxist
regular on arcrc. The others seem to have difficulty explaining where
their
ideas of morality come from, so it is not unreasonable to assume that they
are derived without much reflection from newspapers and schoolrooms and
company human resource departments.
Much as the people who call themselves Christian do.
Again, a contradiction with nothing to back it up.
So the burden of proof only goes one way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 04:17:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:43:18 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
<M8GdnXL1qalFVYPYnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d@bt.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:39:44 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
<3fednW9pmeOaaIDYRVnyig@bt.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
once again, you snip so you can provide a dishonest answer. Of course,
anyone who has read any of your posts is used to your deceit, but, I
suppose, you are hoping to catch someone or other in your fraudulent
trap. Do as you like. You are the one who claims to be holding to some
morality that is not derived from the society around you. Apparently,
you have chosen a very corrupt morality indeed.
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of
Jesus.
Really? Did Jesus teach that it was better to go to war against your
fellow citizen than free slaves? Did He teach that it was right to treat
the descendants of slaves as second-class citizens? The people who did
this claim that they were Christian.
Atrheists are not very subtle debaters. they think the technique is to
refute everything the theist says, no matter how unexcpetional.
Christians derive their moral ideas from the teachings of Jesus.
And I am pointing out the moral ideas that these Christians are
defending. It isn't subtle because these immoral doctrines aren't
subtle. People whose moral standards allow them to treat others as
inferiors by right are morally repugnant. If they blame God or Jesus for
that immorality, that is worth noting.
Jesus's morality was not followed by that many Christians and a similar
morality is followed by many who know nothing about Jesus's teachings.
Granted these may be filtered by interpretation, and the interpretation
will most surely be influenced by the moral climate of the age, but not
to the extent that Jesus's words are totally misrepresented and ear no
relationship to what He actually taught.
And I answer your objection here.
How so?
But you still have to show that there is anything unique about it,
compared to the teachings of others.
Sure. As Christians we have to show that Jesu has a status that Mohammed,
Socrates, Buddha did not. But that wasn't the issue. The question is, "where
do your moral ideas derive from". For the Christian the answer is "From
theteachings of Jesus". \Fir the atheist the answer is ? well that was what
Roger was fishing for.
And my point is that Christians do not get their moral ideas from Jesus
any more than anyone else does in society. Almost no moral teachings can
be attributed to Jesus alone and many moral teachings of Christians and
non-Christians have superceded the teachings that Jesus offered as our
cultures have become more morally advanced.
If youa re not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It used
to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were atheists,
I don't have any reason to accept that assertion.
It is a very unexceptional statement of historical fact.
Except that atheism long preceded Marxism and Marxism was an economic
analysis with some critiques of the failed morality of the day, not a
moral structure by itself.
Until the collapse
of Communism there were an enormous number of people in the world who
described themselves as Marxist and who were atheists.
So what? Atheism does not depend on Marxism and doesn't draw morality
from it.
They outnumbered the non-Marxist atheists.
I would need to see a reliable reference to be persuaded that this is
true.
However if you asked them "form where do you obtian
your moral ideas" they could have answered "from the teachings of Marx".
Would they? Please provide a reference to support that claim.
Because you don't understnad the basic principles of intllectual debate, you
think you need to refute everything that is said, so the discussion cannot
go anywhere.
No, I merely point out how pervasively wrong some Christians'
conceptions of morality is.
so they could point to the source of their ideas. We don't have a Marxist
regular on arcrc. The others seem to have difficulty explaining where their
ideas of morality come from, so it is not unreasonable to assume that they
are derived without much reflection from newspapers and schoolrooms and
company human resource departments.
Much as the people who call themselves Christian do.
Again, a contradiction with nothing to back it up.
The contradictions come within the claims of people who call themselves
Christian but adhere to moral teachings that cannot be found in Jesus's
teachings. They are found within the conflict in Christianity over what
is moral and what is immoral. They come within the Bible itself and the
teachings that are found there and used to justify a wide range of
conflicting moral teachings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 06:57:18 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:43:18 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
Really? Did Jesus teach that it was better to go to war against your
fellow citizen than free slaves? Did He teach that it was right to treat
the descendants of slaves as second-class citizens? The people who did
this claim that they were Christian.
Atrheists are not very subtle debaters. they think the technique is to
refute everything the theist says, no matter how unexcpetional.
Christians derive their moral ideas from the teachings of Jesus.
And I am pointing out the moral ideas that these Christians are
defending. It isn't subtle because these immoral doctrines aren't
subtle. People whose moral standards allow them to treat others as
inferiors by right are morally repugnant. If they blame God or Jesus for
that immorality, that is worth noting.
The question is "where do people, Christians and atheists, dervie their
moral ideas from?" The answer for Christians is "from the teachings of
Jesus".
Jesus's morality was not followed by that many Christians and a similar
morality is followed by many who know nothing about Jesus's teachings.
Granted these may be filtered by interpretation, and the interpretation
will most surely be influenced by the moral climate of the age, but not
to the extent that Jesus's words are totally misrepresented and ear no
relationship to what He actually taught.
And I answer your objection here.
How so?
The problem is that Jesus' ministry was 2000 years ago. So you can
legitimately say that such and such a belief held by Christians doesn't or
may not go back to Jesus. I am not denying that.
But you still have to show that there is anything unique about it,
compared to the teachings of others.
Sure. As Christians we have to show that Jesu has a status that Mohammed,
Socrates, Buddha did not. But that wasn't the issue. The question is,
"where
do your moral ideas derive from". For the Christian the answer is "From
theteachings of Jesus". \Fir the atheist the answer is ? well that was
what
Roger was fishing for.
And my point is that Christians do not get their moral ideas from Jesus
any more than anyone else does in society. Almost no moral teachings can
be attributed to Jesus alone and many moral teachings of Christians and
non-Christians have superceded the teachings that Jesus offered as our
cultures have become more morally advanced.
Jesus did not think and act in vacuum. For instance He would have heard of
Hillel, you can debate about how an extensive influence Hillel was on Him. A
belief or teaching doesn't cease to be a teaching of Jesus if someone else
invented it. A Christian attributes his moral values to Jesus, and generaly
points to some text to back up his case. As a non-Christian, of course you
believe that your moral values are superior to those of Jesus. It would be
alarming if that were not the case.
If youa re not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used
to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were
atheists,
I don't have any reason to accept that assertion.
It is a very unexceptional statement of historical fact.
Except that atheism long preceded Marxism and Marxism was an economic
analysis with some critiques of the failed morality of the day, not a
moral structure by itself.
Marxism was a further development of the ideals of the French Revolution.
The point at which Deism became frank atheism is rather fuzzy. Shelley, for
instance, used the word "atheism" in a pamphlet, but then gave a Deist
argument against the virgin birth.
Until only a few years ago, it was true enough to say that most atheists
were Marxists and most Marxists were atheists. Marxists do know where their
ideas come from.
Until the collapse
of Communism there were an enormous number of people in the world who
described themselves as Marxist and who were atheists.
So what? Atheism does not depend on Marxism and doesn't draw morality
from it.
They outnumbered the non-Marxist atheists.
I would need to see a reliable reference to be persuaded that this is
true.
However if you asked them "form where do you obtian
your moral ideas" they could have answered "from the teachings of Marx".
Would they? Please provide a reference to support that claim.
Ok. I was asked by JessHC
Jess: Gee, I thought the basic principles of intellectual debate meant that
if someone asked you to support your assertion, you either did so or
dropped the subject.
This shows why Jess is wrong. Generally you should support assertions, but
there comes a point where the demand for sources turns into harassment.
You can easily obtain statistics on Communist party membership during the
1980s. You can also obtain statistics on the number of Americans describing
themselves as atheists. Of course there are problems defining atheism, and
more in conducting surveys, so it is not possible to provide the "reliable
reference" that you ask for.
Marxists obtain their ideas on morality from the teachings of Marx. Again, a
totally unexceptional statement. For instance, taking my copy of "Capital"
from the shelf, we find in the introduction by Ernest Mandel
He writes:
The social catstrophes which mankind has witnessed since Austwitch and
Hiroshima indicate that there was nothing "romantic" in such a prognosis [by
Marx], but that it possessed a clear insight into the terrifying destructive
potential of exchange-value production, capital accumulation, and the
struggle for personal enrichment as ends in themselves.
very clearly expressing a moral view, and he is not denying that it comes
from Marx.
Because you don't understnad the basic principles of intllectual debate,
you
think you need to refute everything that is said, so the discussion cannot
go anywhere.
No, I merely point out how pervasively wrong some Christians'
conceptions of morality is.
That is not the issue. The question is, if you are neither a Christian nor a
Marxist, then what are you?
so they could point to the source of their ideas. We don't have a
Marxist
regular on arcrc. The others seem to have difficulty explaining where
their
ideas of morality come from, so it is not unreasonable to assume that
they
are derived without much reflection from newspapers and schoolrooms and
company human resource departments.
Much as the people who call themselves Christian do.
Again, a contradiction with nothing to back it up.
The contradictions come within the claims of people who call themselves
Christian but adhere to moral teachings that cannot be found in Jesus's
teachings. They are found within the conflict in Christianity over what
is moral and what is immoral. They come within the Bible itself and the
teachings that are found there and used to justify a wide range of
conflicting moral teachings.
There are two points here, confused. One is that the teachings of Jesus are
very open to interpretation. There are 30,000 Protestnat denominations, each
with a slightly different view about what the Bible teaches.
The other point is that most Christians are not entirely committed, or very
well instructed. They might believe in reincarnation, for instance, because
it is a popular view. They might accept freemarket ethics, and not relaise
that they inf act have little in common with what Jesus taught.
However in so far as they are Christians then their ideas go back to Jesus,
given the inevitable limitations. We don't want to exaggerate these. Most of
the parables make perfect sense now as then, and are not all that easy to
misinterpret.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 08:40:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 00:57:18 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
<-9-dnehE08f9_oLYnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@bt.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:43:18 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
Really? Did Jesus teach that it was better to go to war against your
fellow citizen than free slaves? Did He teach that it was right to treat
the descendants of slaves as second-class citizens? The people who did
this claim that they were Christian.
Atrheists are not very subtle debaters. they think the technique is to
refute everything the theist says, no matter how unexcpetional.
Christians derive their moral ideas from the teachings of Jesus.
And I am pointing out the moral ideas that these Christians are
defending. It isn't subtle because these immoral doctrines aren't
subtle. People whose moral standards allow them to treat others as
inferiors by right are morally repugnant. If they blame God or Jesus for
that immorality, that is worth noting.
The question is "where do people, Christians and atheists, dervie their
moral ideas from?" The answer for Christians is "from the teachings of
Jesus".
Except that this is not the correct answer. Christians adopt conflicting
moral ideas and they get these ideas not only from the teachings of
Jesus, but from the laws of the Old Testament, the teachings of St.
Paul, and a wide variety of cultural influences outside of religion:
Greece and Rome, Buddha, Confucius, the laws of Europe, England and the
United States, modern teachings by philosophers and theologians, etc.,
just as everyone else does in this society.
Jesus's morality was not followed by that many Christians and a similar
morality is followed by many who know nothing about Jesus's teachings.
Granted these may be filtered by interpretation, and the interpretation
will most surely be influenced by the moral climate of the age, but not
to the extent that Jesus's words are totally misrepresented and ear no
relationship to what He actually taught.
And I answer your objection here.
How so?
The problem is that Jesus' ministry was 2000 years ago. So you can
legitimately say that such and such a belief held by Christians doesn't or
may not go back to Jesus. I am not denying that.
But you still have to show that there is anything unique about it,
compared to the teachings of others.
Sure. As Christians we have to show that Jesu has a status that Mohammed,
Socrates, Buddha did not. But that wasn't the issue. The question is,
"where
do your moral ideas derive from". For the Christian the answer is "From
theteachings of Jesus". \Fir the atheist the answer is ? well that was
what
Roger was fishing for.
And my point is that Christians do not get their moral ideas from Jesus
any more than anyone else does in society. Almost no moral teachings can
be attributed to Jesus alone and many moral teachings of Christians and
non-Christians have superceded the teachings that Jesus offered as our
cultures have become more morally advanced.
Jesus did not think and act in vacuum. For instance He would have heard of
Hillel, you can debate about how an extensive influence Hillel was on Him. A
belief or teaching doesn't cease to be a teaching of Jesus if someone else
invented it. A Christian attributes his moral values to Jesus, and generaly
points to some text to back up his case. As a non-Christian, of course you
believe that your moral values are superior to those of Jesus. It would be
alarming if that were not the case.
I don't understand that last comment. I am not religious, but I do draw
much of my morality from Christianity because that is the moral
framework in which I was brought up. I notice that some of the teachings
of Jesus's time have been supplanted by more modern moral teachings,
both among Christians and non-Christians.
If youa re not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used
to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were
atheists,
I don't have any reason to accept that assertion.
It is a very unexceptional statement of historical fact.
Except that atheism long preceded Marxism and Marxism was an economic
analysis with some critiques of the failed morality of the day, not a
moral structure by itself.
Marxism was a further development of the ideals of the French Revolution.
I doubt that Marx would have agreed with you.
The point at which Deism became frank atheism is rather fuzzy. Shelley, for
instance, used the word "atheism" in a pamphlet, but then gave a Deist
argument against the virgin birth.
That's interesting, but atheism still long preceded Marxism and the
French Revolution.
Until only a few years ago, it was true enough to say that most atheists
were Marxists and most Marxists were atheists. Marxists do know where their
ideas come from.
I still don't see why you have such a desire to tie these unrelated
concepts together. As we see in Acts, examples of communism long precede
Marx, yet no one accuse them of being atheist. We also know of a number
of well-documented atheists in Greece and Rome. It is also quite clear
from history that long before the Greek and Roman religions disappeared,
there were many atheists going through the social motions.
Until the collapse
of Communism there were an enormous number of people in the world who
described themselves as Marxist and who were atheists.
So what? Atheism does not depend on Marxism and doesn't draw morality
from it.
They outnumbered the non-Marxist atheists.
I would need to see a reliable reference to be persuaded that this is
true.
However if you asked them "form where do you obtian
your moral ideas" they could have answered "from the teachings of Marx".
Would they? Please provide a reference to support that claim.
Ok. I was asked by JessHC
Jess: Gee, I thought the basic principles of intellectual debate meant that
if someone asked you to support your assertion, you either did so or
dropped the subject.
This shows why Jess is wrong. Generally you should support assertions, but
there comes a point where the demand for sources turns into harassment.
You can easily obtain statistics on Communist party membership during the
1980s. You can also obtain statistics on the number of Americans describing
themselves as atheists. Of course there are problems defining atheism, and
more in conducting surveys, so it is not possible to provide the "reliable
reference" that you ask for.
I'm sorry. I hadn't seen where you had limited your claim about atheists
being Communists to the United States. I don't think you are offering
adequate support, even for the US, particularly since many Communists
felt that they had to hide their communism during the years that it was
essentially criminal to be a communist in the US, despite our
Constitutional protections for it.
Marxists obtain their ideas on morality from the teachings of Marx. Again, a
totally unexceptional statement. For instance, taking my copy of "Capital"
from the shelf, we find in the introduction by Ernest Mandel
He writes:
The social catstrophes which mankind has witnessed since Austwitch and
Hiroshima indicate that there was nothing "romantic" in such a prognosis [by
Marx], but that it possessed a clear insight into the terrifying destructive
potential of exchange-value production, capital accumulation, and the
struggle for personal enrichment as ends in themselves.
very clearly expressing a moral view, and he is not denying that it comes
from Marx.
There were certain moral implications in Marx, some of them happen to
match Jesus's teachings, particularly about wealth.
Because you don't understnad the basic principles of intllectual debate,
you
think you need to refute everything that is said, so the discussion cannot
go anywhere.
No, I merely point out how pervasively wrong some Christians'
conceptions of morality is.
That is not the issue. The question is, if you are neither a Christian nor a
Marxist, then what are you?
A human being who chooses my moral framework primarily from the
teachings of others and from experience, just as all other human beings
have done.
so they could point to the source of their ideas. We don't have a
Marxist
regular on arcrc. The others seem to have difficulty explaining where
their
ideas of morality come from, so it is not unreasonable to assume that
they
are derived without much reflection from newspapers and schoolrooms and
company human resource departments.
Much as the people who call themselves Christian do.
Again, a contradiction with nothing to back it up.
The contradictions come within the claims of people who call themselves
Christian but adhere to moral teachings that cannot be found in Jesus's
teachings. They are found within the conflict in Christianity over what
is moral and what is immoral. They come within the Bible itself and the
teachings that are found there and used to justify a wide range of
conflicting moral teachings.
There are two points here, confused. One is that the teachings of Jesus are
very open to interpretation. There are 30,000 Protestnat denominations, each
with a slightly different view about what the Bible teaches.
Yes, exactly. They cannot possibly all be getting their moral teachings
from Jesus.
The other point is that most Christians are not entirely committed, or very
well instructed. They might believe in reincarnation, for instance, because
it is a popular view. They might accept freemarket ethics, and not relaise
that they inf act have little in common with what Jesus taught.
So we agree. Christians do not get their morality from Jesus. They get
it from their culture and experience, just as everyone else does. That
doesn't mean that Jesus's teachings are not part of their culture, only
that they are not the only foundation of morality for these people.
However in so far as they are Christians then their ideas go back to Jesus,
given the inevitable limitations. We don't want to exaggerate these. Most of
the parables make perfect sense now as then, and are not all that easy to
misinterpret.
The problem is that the United States is the wealthy country that treats
its poor the worst yet is most adament about claiming to be Christian.
The developed nation that throws the most people into prison and still
has the death penalty as a part of its smug self-righteousness, but
contrary to the teachings of Jesus, is the United States.
Americans have a tendency to tell Jesus what he should have taught and
blame their moral code on Him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 01:00:32 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159543101.440830.90710@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 08:45:39 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159458339.158160.202920@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
Da Man wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 27 Sep 2006 06:16:43 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159363003.191193.299670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
(snip)
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position from
examination and discussion is another reason to consider atheism
intellectually substandard.
Nonsense. Your assertion is neither supportable, many atheists are quite
willing to discuss why they are atheists...
Nope. All you are willing to discuss is excuses why you are not a
Christian. Pardon me, but they don't sound like honest reasons either.
I'm uninterested in why you found it convenient to adopt a set of
values that you can't discuss.
I don't believe in ... (change of subject snipped)
If we cannot state the system of values and ideas by which we live --
which for atheists always turns out to be conformity to some subset of
the mutually contradictory societal values of the time in which they
happened to be born
Yes, atheists choose their values from the values that they are
introduced to or develop for themselves, ...
once again, ...(abuse, attempt to change subject snipped)
It is fortunate for them that they do not manage their financial
affairs on a similarly wishful basis. Rational people try to find out
what the facts are, not just "choose" from a menu of ideas which merely
happens to be in fashion at the time that they are around.
When you get into .. (abuse)
<chuckle>
No answer? I thought not.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Da Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 03:20:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1159543101.440830.90710@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 08:45:39 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1159458339.158160.202920@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
Da Man wrote:
wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 27 Sep 2006 06:16:43 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1159363003.191193.299670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
(snip)
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position from
examination and discussion is another reason to consider atheism
intellectually substandard.
Nonsense. Your assertion is neither supportable, many atheists are quite
willing to discuss why they are atheists...
Nope. All you are willing to discuss is excuses why you are not a
Christian. Pardon me, but they don't sound like honest reasons either.
I'm uninterested in why you found it convenient to adopt a set of
values that you can't discuss.
I don't believe in ... (change of subject snipped)
If we cannot state the system of values and ideas by which we live --
which for atheists always turns out to be conformity to some subset of
the mutually contradictory societal values of the time in which they
happened to be born
Yes, atheists choose their values from the values that they are
introduced to or develop for themselves, ...
once again, ...(abuse, attempt to change subject snipped)
It is fortunate for them that they do not manage their financial
affairs on a similarly wishful basis. Rational people try to find out
what the facts are, not just "choose" from a menu of ideas which merely
happens to be in fashion at the time that they are around.
When you get into .. (abuse)
<chuckle>
No answer? I thought not.
<argument by snippage>
No honesty? I thought not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 09:09:54 AM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 23:00:32 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159596032.229708.239660@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159543101.440830.90710@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 08:45:39 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159458339.158160.202920@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
Da Man wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 27 Sep 2006 06:16:43 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159363003.191193.299670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
(snip)
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position from
examination and discussion is another reason to consider atheism
intellectually substandard.
Nonsense. Your assertion is neither supportable, many atheists are quite
willing to discuss why they are atheists...
Nope. All you are willing to discuss is excuses why you are not a
Christian. Pardon me, but they don't sound like honest reasons either.
I'm uninterested in why you found it convenient to adopt a set of
values that you can't discuss.
I don't believe in ... (change of subject snipped)
If we cannot state the system of values and ideas by which we live --
which for atheists always turns out to be conformity to some subset of
the mutually contradictory societal values of the time in which they
happened to be born
Yes, atheists choose their values from the values that they are
introduced to or develop for themselves, ...
once again, ...(abuse, attempt to change subject snipped)
It is fortunate for them that they do not manage their financial
affairs on a similarly wishful basis. Rational people try to find out
what the facts are, not just "choose" from a menu of ideas which merely
happens to be in fashion at the time that they are around.
When you get into .. (abuse)
<chuckle>
No answer? I thought not.
I have answered. You snipped.
Your lies don't become true just because you ignore criticisms of them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 03:15:34 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk)
made the light shine upon us with this:
Da Man wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 27 Sep 2006 06:16:43 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159363003.191193.299670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
(snip)
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position
from examination and discussion is another reason to consider
atheism intellectually substandard.
Nonsense. Your assertion is neither supportable, many atheists are
quite willing to discuss why they are atheists...
Nope. All you are willing to discuss is excuses why you are not a
Christian. Pardon me, but they don't sound like honest reasons
either.
I'm uninterested in why you found it convenient to adopt a set of
values that you can't discuss.
I don't believe in ... (change of subject snipped)
If we ... (change of subject snipped)
Why are you afraid to admit that your gods are the same as all the rest
of the supernatural nonsense that unintelligent people believe in because
they're afraid of reality?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 04:58:40 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
Why are you afraid to admit that your gods are the same as all the rest
of the supernatural nonsense that unintelligent people believe in because
they're afraid of reality?
Wicca argument.
Not all religions have the same intellectual status.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
29 Sep 2006 11:10:38 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
Why are you afraid to admit that your gods are the same as all the rest
of the supernatural nonsense that unintelligent people believe in because
they're afraid of reality?
Wicca argument.
Not all religions have the same intellectual status.
Why, because you say so?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 03:50:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:23:17 -0600, Da Man <da@man.net> wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 27 Sep 2006 06:16:43 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159363003.191193.299670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
(snip)
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position from
examination and discussion is another reason to consider atheism
intellectually substandard.
Nonsense. Your assertion is neither supportable, many atheists are quite
willing to discuss why they are atheists...
Nope. All you are willing to discuss is excuses why you are not a
Christian. Pardon me, but they don't sound like honest reasons either.
I'm uninterested in why you found it convenient to adopt a set of
values that you can't discuss.
Things like that demonstrate Pearse is a disgusting, nasty,
in-your-face lying, certifiable psychopath.
I don't believe in the Loch Nest Monster,
Bigfoot, or vampires. Are these values I
should be able to discuss in order for
them to be valid in your view?
Or does my unwillingness to discuss why I
don't believe in them invalidate my lack
of belief in your view?
The short answer as to why atheists don't
believe in gods is the lack of evidence,
from their perspective.
From any perspective. There is none. If there were, in-your-face
believers wouldn't be able to keep it tothemselves.
There's nothing to "examine", because it
doesn't entail a belief in something, nor
does it entail a belief against something,
it's simply a lack of belief.
It's not rocket science. But lunatics like Pearse refuse to grant it
and invent all sorts of falsehoods about us to rationalise their
bigoted prejudice.
You, OTOH, posit a deity. Ok, have at it,
we'll all wait patiently for your proof.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 12:19:39 PM |
|
|
An Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:55:58 -0700, roger_pearse schreibt:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 27 Sep 2006 06:16:43 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159363003.191193.299670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 02:49:41 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159264181.786875.39640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
kidigus wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[edited]
...
Atheism is not what atheists believe and live by.
No, I agree. All the atheists that I have ever encountered live by the
societal values and shibboleths of the period of history in which they
happened to be born. For this way of life they can offer nothing, as a
rule.
As do Christians ...
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
So you do agree that ..
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
Which sort of summarises the whole post, apart from the personal
attacks.
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position from
examination and discussion is another reason to consider atheism
intellectually substandard.
Nonsense. Your assertion is neither supportable, many atheists are quite
willing to discuss why they are atheists...
Nope. All you are willing to discuss is excuses why you are not a
Christian. Pardon me, but they don't sound like honest reasons either.
I'm uninterested in why you found it convenient to adopt a set of
values that you can't discuss.
It seems that it is you who doesn´t want to engage in an honest
discussion. What values do you want to discuss? It certainly isn´t why we
are atheists, evidenced by your inability to engage in a discussion about
it with Free Lunch.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 07:11:12 AM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2006 00:55:58 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159430158.743182.239130@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 27 Sep 2006 06:16:43 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159363003.191193.299670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 02:49:41 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159264181.786875.39640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
kidigus wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[edited]
...
Atheism is not what atheists believe and live by.
No, I agree. All the atheists that I have ever encountered live by the
societal values and shibboleths of the period of history in which they
happened to be born. For this way of life they can offer nothing, as a
rule.
As do Christians ...
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
So you do agree that ..
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
Which sort of summarises the whole post, apart from the personal
attacks.
No.
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position from
examination and discussion is another reason to consider atheism
intellectually substandard.
Nonsense. Your assertion is neither supportable, many atheists are quite
willing to discuss why they are atheists...
Nope. All you are willing to discuss is excuses why you are not a
Christian. Pardon me, but they don't sound like honest reasons either.
I'm uninterested in why you found it convenient to adopt a set of
values that you can't discuss.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss values. Are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 10:52:48 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 00:55:58 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159430158.743182.239130@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 27 Sep 2006 06:16:43 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159363003.191193.299670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 02:49:41 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159264181.786875.39640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
kidigus wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[edited]
...
Atheism is not what atheists believe and live by.
No, I agree. All the atheists that I have ever encountered live by the
societal values and shibboleths of the period of history in which they
happened to be born. For this way of life they can offer nothing, as a
rule.
As do Christians ...
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
So you do agree that ..
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
Which sort of summarises the whole post, apart from the personal
attacks.
No.
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position from
examination and discussion is another reason to consider atheism
intellectually substandard.
Nonsense. Your assertion is neither supportable, many atheists are quite
willing to discuss why they are atheists...
Nope. All you are willing to discuss is excuses why you are not a
Christian. Pardon me, but they don't sound like honest reasons either.
I'm uninterested in why you found it convenient to adopt a set of
values that you can't discuss.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss values. Are you?
Do we see an actual universe or is it restricted to our own tinted,
"contented" realm?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 05:06:30 PM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2006 08:52:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"AL" <aavery6801@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1159458768.195509.27970@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 00:55:58 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1159430158.743182.239130@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 27 Sep 2006 06:16:43 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1159363003.191193.299670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 02:49:41 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1159264181.786875.39640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
kidigus wrote:
wrote:
[edited]
...
Atheism is not what atheists believe and live by.
No, I agree. All the atheists that I have ever encountered live by the
societal values and shibboleths of the period of history in which they
happened to be born. For this way of life they can offer nothing, as a
rule.
As do Christians ...
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
So you do agree that ..
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
Which sort of summarises the whole post, apart from the personal
attacks.
No.
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position from
examination and discussion is another reason to consider atheism
intellectually substandard.
Nonsense. Your assertion is neither supportable, many atheists are quite
willing to discuss why they are atheists...
Nope. All you are willing to discuss is excuses why you are not a
Christian. Pardon me, but they don't sound like honest reasons either.
I'm uninterested in why you found it convenient to adopt a set of
values that you can't discuss.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss values. Are you?
Do we see an actual universe or is it restricted to our own tinted,
"contented" realm?
I have no confidence whatsoever that will do
anything but make unsupportable assertions and hide behind the invisible
wall of his religious beliefs, but I am an optimist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
25 Sep 2006 05:47:10 PM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2006 03:40:49 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159180849.445643.32650@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 23 Sep 2006 15:16:12 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159049772.180538.207740@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Malcolm
(regniztar@btinternet.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
Can you prove Jesus existed? That's a big claim you've made, "Jesus
was a man".
Not really President Bush is a man.
What evidence? Post it. ...
My atheism is one of the reasons I don't believe in a historical
personification of Jesus.
Indeed. It sort of dissuades people from being atheists.
That doesn't make sense.
Most atheists think that their position is very strong.
But they can only maintain it by never considering what it is that they
believe and live by -- unthinking conformity to the values of the time
in which they happened to be born -- and by concentrating on any and
every excuse or fault-finding that intellect can find or malice imagine
with the Christian account.
I'm not persuaded that you have evidence to support either side of that.
Atheists have many different moral compasses, just as Christians do.
There's nothing inherent in Christianity that makes people behave
morally -- we can see that from the history of Western Civilization.
Atheists are as moral as they learn to be -- from culture, like
Christians and adherents to other religions, but also from their desires
and their attitudes about others, like Christians and adherents to other
religions.
The result is that their objections all fail basic sanity tests, and
often are equally applicable to their own position. Listening to
atheists pleading the case for Osiris on the basis that for thousands
of years Egyptians were sunk in superstitious conformity to it is
hilarious, if you are cynical like myself.
That doesn't really follow from the rest of your comments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
26 Sep 2006 04:52:09 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 03:40:49 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159180849.445643.32650@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 23 Sep 2006 15:16:12 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159049772.180538.207740@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Malcolm
(regniztar@btinternet.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
Can you prove Jesus existed? That's a big claim you've made, "Jesus
was a man".
Not really President Bush is a man.
What evidence? Post it. ...
My atheism is one of the reasons I don't believe in a historical
personification of Jesus.
Indeed. It sort of dissuades people from being atheists.
That doesn't make sense.
Most atheists think that their position is very strong.
But they can only maintain it by never considering what it is that they
believe and live by -- unthinking conformity to the values of the time
in which they happened to be born -- and by concentrating on any and
every excuse or fault-finding that intellect can find or malice imagine
with the Christian account.
I'm not persuaded that you have evidence to support either side of that.
Atheists have many different moral compasses, just as Christians do.
There's nothing inherent in Christianity that makes people behave
morally -- we can see that from the history of Western Civilization.
Atheists are as moral as they learn to be -- from culture, like
Christians and adherents to other religions, but also from their desires
and their attitudes about others, like Christians and adherents to other
religions.
This is a standard set of atheist statements. It is not correct, tho.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
26 Sep 2006 05:00:51 PM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2006 02:52:09 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159264329.366765.53190@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 03:40:49 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159180849.445643.32650@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 23 Sep 2006 15:16:12 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159049772.180538.207740@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Malcolm
(regniztar@btinternet.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
Can you prove Jesus existed? That's a big claim you've made, "Jesus
was a man".
Not really President Bush is a man.
What evidence? Post it. ...
My atheism is one of the reasons I don't believe in a historical
personification of Jesus.
Indeed. It sort of dissuades people from being atheists.
That doesn't make sense.
Most atheists think that their position is very strong.
But they can only maintain it by never considering what it is that they
believe and live by -- unthinking conformity to the values of the time
in which they happened to be born -- and by concentrating on any and
every excuse or fault-finding that intellect can find or malice imagine
with the Christian account.
I'm not persuaded that you have evidence to support either side of that.
Atheists have many different moral compasses, just as Christians do.
There's nothing inherent in Christianity that makes people behave
morally -- we can see that from the history of Western Civilization.
Atheists are as moral as they learn to be -- from culture, like
Christians and adherents to other religions, but also from their desires
and their attitudes about others, like Christians and adherents to other
religions.
This is a standard set of atheist statements. It is not correct, tho.
Please, tell me exactly what you mean by that. What evidence supports
your conclusion?
.
|
|
| | | |
