| 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: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
21 Sep 2006 12:36:28 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet BAM
(mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9844E069326E1vicman@216.196.97.136...
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet BAM (mcca5761
@blahblahbellsouth.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
"2688Dead" <zepp22112688@finestplanet.com> wrote
How do you hate something that doesn't exist?
You tell me. You're the atheist. What thinkest ye of Christ?
Probably the same you think of Apollo.
That's dishonest, and reflects that supercilious tone of the atheist.
Like a little kid who walks off with his present as if he'll never
need anyone ever again for anything.
What present, the one you *think* you're getting? Didn't anyone teach
you not to count your chickens before they hatch?
What's dishonest is what you just wrote. There is just as much evidence
for the existence of Apollo as there is for Jesus.
--
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 |
21 Sep 2006 04:41:39 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet BAM
You tell me. You're the atheist. What thinkest ye of Christ?
Probably the same you think of Apollo.
What's dishonest is what you just wrote. There is just as much evidence
for the existence of Apollo as there is for Jesus.
Apollo is a Sun god. There is of course such an entity as the Sun, there may
have been an historical person who became associated with the Sun and
worshipped as the god Apollo, but there is no real evidence for this, as far
as I am aware.
Jesus was a man who lived in first century Galilee and Jerusalem. So the
case is somewhat different. The question is whether His followers' claims
that He had miraculous or, if you prefer, magical abilities are true or not.
You can make a non-crackpot argument that there are good grounds for
treating these claims as false. But not if you can't distinguish Jesus from
Apollo. All you do is disqualify yourself as a serious commentator and,
therefore, in the philosphical sense, as an atheist. It takes a degree of
sophistication and rigour before your opinion that there is no God rises to
the status of a defensible proposition.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
22 Sep 2006 08:24:57 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet BAM
You tell me. You're the atheist. What thinkest ye of Christ?
Probably the same you think of Apollo.
What's dishonest is what you just wrote. There is just as much evidence
for the existence of Apollo as there is for Jesus.
Apollo is a Sun god. There is of course such an entity as the Sun, there
may have been an historical person who became associated with the Sun and
worshipped as the god Apollo, but there is no real evidence for this, as
far as I am aware.
Jesus was a man who lived in first century Galilee and Jerusalem. So the
case is somewhat different. The question is whether His followers' claims
that He had miraculous or, if you prefer, magical abilities are true or
not. You can make a non-crackpot argument that there are good grounds for
treating these claims as false. But not if you can't distinguish Jesus
from Apollo. All you do is disqualify yourself as a serious commentator
and, therefore, in the philosphical sense, as an atheist. It takes a
degree of sophistication and rigour before your opinion that there is no
God rises to the status of a defensible proposition.
True. The bible makes some claims about Jesus
and it is these claims we need to examine.
Do the claims of the bible stand up to scrutiny?
********************************************
John 14:12-14
12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on me, the works that I do shall he
do also; and greater works than these shall
he do; because I go unto my Father.
13: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name,
that will I do, that the Father may be glorified
in the Son
14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name,
I will do it.
Mark 11:23-4
For verily I say this unto you, That
whosoever shall say unto this mountain,
Be thou removed, and be thou cast
into the sea; and shall not doubt
in his heart, but shall believe that
those things which he saith shall
come to pass; he shall have whatsoever
he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What
things soever ye desire, when ye pray,
believe ye receive them and ye shall have
them.
Matthew 21:22
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask
in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Matthew 18:19-20
Again I say unto you, that if two of you
shall agree on earth as touching anything
that they shall ask, it shall be done for
them of my father which is in heaven. For
where two or three are gathered in my name,
there I am in the midst of them.
***********************************************
I suspect the claims Jesus worked miracles et al
did not pass scrutiny with the Jews who knew him.
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
22 Sep 2006 05:32:00 PM |
|
|
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
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet BAM
You tell me. You're the atheist. What thinkest ye of Christ?
Probably the same you think of Apollo.
What's dishonest is what you just wrote. There is just as much
evidence for the existence of Apollo as there is for Jesus.
Apollo is a Sun god. There is of course such an entity as the Sun,
there may have been an historical person who became associated with
the Sun and worshipped as the god Apollo, but there is no real
evidence for this, as far as I am aware.
Jesus was a man who lived in first century Galilee and Jerusalem. So
the case is somewhat different. The question is whether His followers'
claims that He had miraculous or, if you prefer, magical abilities are
true or not. You can make a non-crackpot argument that there are good
grounds for treating these claims as false. But not if you can't
distinguish Jesus from Apollo. All you do is disqualify yourself as a
serious commentator and, therefore, in the philosphical sense, as an
atheist. It takes a degree of sophistication and rigour before your
opinion that there is no God rises to the status of a defensible
proposition.
Can you prove Jesus existed? That's a big claim you've made, "Jesus was
a man". Just as big as the claim that Apollo was a man. Evidence,
please. Outside of the bible we have nothing but the fraudulent
insertions in Josephus, a Turin Shroud from the 13th century, and a bag
of bones that was dismissed from being Brother James. And a whole bunch
of history books that are strangely empty of biblical miracles. Did all
500 witnesses written about in the bible just keep it to themselves?
While Josephus was writing Herod the Great's biography, why didn't he
include the Slaughter of the Innocents? Why does the Bible call Jesus
"Jesus of Nazareth"?
I'm not looking for a defensible position by refusing to believe the
claims of the religious without being presented some evidence to back
them. It's your claim, you defend it.
--
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 |
23 Sep 2006 02:16:28 AM |
|
|
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
"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. Now I have never met him, and know that
these days television technology is very clever. So it is just possible that
there is no such person, but the TV companies are conspiring with the
newspapers to convince me that he exists.
That's about the level of the "Jesus Myth" debate. Either there was a person
called Jesus, or there was a massive and extremely effective conspiracy in
the first century to fabricate evidence.
Just as big as the claim that Apollo was a man.
In the case of Apollo, we don't have dates, we don't have a location, we
don't have names of other people he interacted with. So it is not impossible
that there was an historical individual called "Apollo" who later came to be
regarded as a Sun God, but in this case there genuinely isn't any surviving
evidence.
Evidence,
please. Outside of the bible we have nothing but the fraudulent
insertions in Josephus, a Turin Shroud from the 13th century, and a bag
of bones that was dismissed from being Brother James. And a whole bunch
of history books that are strangely empty of biblical miracles. Did all
500 witnesses written about in the bible just keep it to themselves?
We've got more documentation on Jesus than almost any first century figure,
expect a few Emperors and writers. Josephus is dismissed as fraudulent on
the grounds he refers to Jesus as performing miracles, and you dismiss the
miracles on the grounds that they don't appear in the history books. See the
weakness?
While Josephus was writing Herod the Great's biography, why didn't he
include the Slaughter of the Innocents? Why does the Bible call Jesus
"Jesus of Nazareth"?
The Bible is very clear that Nazareth was the village where Jesus grew up.
Now the word has some similarites to "Nazirite", which was a cult of
consecrated men who abstained from wine and didn't cut their hair. It also
sounds similar to "Nozriti", the hebrew word for Christian. Some people have
wondered if maybe there has been some confusion with these words. However
there is no much point going into that debate here.
I'm not looking for a defensible position by refusing to believe the
claims of the religious without being presented some evidence to back
them. It's your claim, you defend it.
Ok. Your position is that there was no such historical individual as Jesus.
Now we certainly haven't refuted atheism by showing this idea to be false,
but we have refuted your atheism. If we can show that there was indeed such
a person as Jesus, your reason for being an atheist disappears.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
23 Sep 2006 02:32:45 PM |
|
|
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. Now I have never met him, and know
that these days television technology is very clever. So it is just
possible that there is no such person, but the TV companies are
conspiring with the newspapers to convince me that he exists.
That's about the level of the "Jesus Myth" debate. Either there was a
person called Jesus, or there was a massive and extremely effective
conspiracy in the first century to fabricate evidence.
What evidence? Post it. We know Bush exists, because people we trust as
eye witnesses have seen him. We do not have contradictory stories about
what he has done. And there are no abushists. :-)
There may have been a charismatic preacher back in those days. There may
have been many. That's not news. The Resurrection - now *that's* news.
News that was conspicuously left out of every testamonial except the one
that invented it.
Just as big as the claim that Apollo was a man.
In the case of Apollo, we don't have dates, we don't have a location,
we don't have names of other people he interacted with.
Sure we do. He was born a Titan, son of Zeus, on the island of Delos.
Look up any website on Greek Mythology for cross-referencing. Then try
to find him in secular history. You'll only find references to Greek
beliefs, and the Pythian Games held every eight years in His Honor.
So it is not
impossible that there was an historical individual called "Apollo" who
later came to be regarded as a Sun God, but in this case there
genuinely isn't any surviving evidence.
What is a Titan, then? Where do their descendants live? The only
"evidence" we have for Apollo is in Greek Mythology and works written in
reference to it. Just like the only "evidence" we have for Jesus is in
the bible, and works written about the bible.
Evidence,
please. Outside of the bible we have nothing but the fraudulent
insertions in Josephus, a Turin Shroud from the 13th century, and a
bag of bones that was dismissed from being Brother James. And a
whole bunch of history books that are strangely empty of biblical
miracles. Did all 500 witnesses written about in the bible just keep
it to themselves?
We've got more documentation on Jesus than almost any first century
figure, expect a few Emperors and writers.
What documentation? Name one historian who was referring to the actual
life and works of one Jesus the Christ, and not reporting on what people
believed.
Josephus is dismissed as
fraudulent on the grounds he refers to Jesus as performing miracles,
and you dismiss the miracles on the grounds that they don't appear in
the history books. See the weakness?
No. Until someone produces evidence for divine miracles, they remain
claimed miracles. The passages in Josephus are dismissed because they
are out of religious context. Josephus was an Orthodox Jew. He never
would have penned the words "...he was the messiah" any more than I would
have.
Can you answer my question? Were the 500 witnesses that saw Jesus appear
to them real people? What are their names? Where are they chronicled in
secular history?
The Bible says we can pray to God for anything, and if we pray in Jesus'
name, we will receive it. The bible also says Jesus appeared to 500
witnesses in order to prove to them that the Resurrection happened. When
I pray to god in Jesus' name for Jesus to manifest himself right in front
of me in order to prove his existence to me, why doesn't he do it?
Jesus could have been a man, a crazy preacher. I personally don't think
so. Jesus could not have been the son of any god, for the same reason
that Apollo was not the son of any god. There is no evidence for divine
activity outside of your religion. And when you strip Jesus of his
divinity, his existence as a man matters no more than if Apollo existed
as a man.
While Josephus was writing Herod the Great's biography, why didn't he
include the Slaughter of the Innocents? Why does the Bible call
Jesus "Jesus of Nazareth"?
The Bible is very clear that Nazareth was the village where Jesus grew
up. Now the word has some similarites to "Nazirite", which was a cult
of consecrated men who abstained from wine and didn't cut their hair.
It also sounds similar to "Nozriti", the hebrew word for Christian.
Some people have wondered if maybe there has been some confusion with
these words. However there is no much point going into that debate
here.
Mistranslation is just one of a million excuses Christians have made up
over the centuries. Every time someone points out a contradiction, a
glaring scientific error, a bold-faced lie, the Christian has to make up
an excuse in order to justify the continuation of the belief in light of
what he has just been shown. Sometimes they are conglomerations that
combine contradictory material into one story, like the Death of Judas.
Other times, they are direct denials of reality, like claiming evolution
is false. Or the earth really is flat, and science is a conspiracy
theory that contradicts Truth.
The problem here is that archaeology has proven that Nazareth did not
exist as a *city* at the time the bible says Jesus lived in the *City* of
Nazareth. It shows that those references were probably added to the
gospels at some point after the city of Nazareth was built - the author
not bothering to check facts, just assuming it had been around for a few
centuries longer than it actually had. It shows the Gospel story as an
evolving being, not a historical account of a real person named Jesus.
I'm not looking for a defensible position by refusing to believe the
claims of the religious without being presented some evidence to back
them. It's your claim, you defend it.
Ok. Your position is that there was no such historical individual as
Jesus. Now we certainly haven't refuted atheism by showing this idea
to be false, but we have refuted your atheism. If we can show that
there was indeed such a person as Jesus, your reason for being an
atheist disappears.
My reasoning for atheism does not stem from the doubt that there was a
historical Jesus. In fact there are dozens of problems with world
religions that contribute to my atheism. It's the other way around. My
atheism is one of the reasons I don't believe in a historical
personification of Jesus. My belief is backed by a conspicuous lack of
expected evidence for a historical personification of Jesus.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
23 Sep 2006 05:16:12 PM |
|
|
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.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
23 Sep 2006 05:28:08 PM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
24 Sep 2006 02:05:55 AM |
|
|
"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. They only maintain
that position by shying from the evidence. When you look at what Jesus did
and said, you can, without absurdity, remain an atheist. But you do have to
admit certain problems. For instance the Resurrection is a cetnral element
of the story.take out that event, and suddenly you can't explain how the
church expanded, without resorting to rather unconvincing theories of mass
hallucination or auto-persuasion.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
24 Sep 2006 04:16:43 AM |
|
|
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. They only
maintain that position by shying from the evidence. When you look at what
Jesus did and said, you can, without absurdity, remain an atheist. But
you do have to
admit certain problems. For instance the Resurrection is a cetnral
element of the story.take out that event, and suddenly you can't explain
how the church expanded, without resorting to rather unconvincing
theories of mass hallucination or auto-persuasion.
The religion of Egypt lasted 4000 years until
physically stamped out by the Fucking Christians.
How did that religion last so long if the tale of resurrected Osiris was a
fake?
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
25 Sep 2006 05:40:49 AM |
|
|
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.
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.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "kidigus" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
25 Sep 2006 07:34:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
[edited]
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.
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.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Please believe that I don't mean to condescend, but you don't seem to
understand atheism. Atheism is not what atheists believe and live by.
There is nothing there on which to base a belief let alone guide our
lives. What we believe and how we guide our lives are based on a great
many things, as you can imagine, but belief and moral codes cannot be
based on a void.
One who believes in god can base there entire persona on this belief,
as well they should. One who does not believe in god must go
elsewhere, for atheism is a hole; a vacuum. Some atheists attack
theists for there beliefs because there is something there to attack.
The theist has a hard time attacking atheists because you may not know
what it is that drives the atheist. You know it isn't god but that
doesn't really help. Is it science? Literature? Family? Music?
Nonconformity? Who knows. For me it's science.
Simply put, many atheists who feel that they must attack theists are
aiming at god and religions. They are big targets and very easy to hit.
Many theists who feel that they must attack atheists are aiming at a
hole. There is no bullseye to hit unless you get to know your target.
I shouldn't make it sound as though many theists don't already know
this; this is why science comes under attack every once in a while.
Science is as good a target as a theist could hope for but while it is
big, it's not so easy to hit. The atheist need only attack the idea of
god which can be as easy as hitting a paper plate at your feet. In the
Judeo-Christian religion this is the case because the bible is believed
to be the word of god. The bible is an easy target to hit. Science on
the other hand is a target as big as the Tetons but it is so far away
from too many theists; many have a lot of work to do before they should
think about drawing their bow.
Peace,
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: AQOTM? Extra groups removed |
26 Sep 2006 01:39:52 PM |
|
|
kidigus wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[edited]
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.
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.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Begin nominated portion
Please believe that I don't mean to condescend, but you don't seem to
understand atheism. Atheism is not what atheists believe and live by.
There is nothing there on which to base a belief let alone guide our
lives. What we believe and how we guide our lives are based on a great
many things, as you can imagine, but belief and moral codes cannot be
based on a void.
One who believes in god can base there entire persona on this belief,
as well they should. One who does not believe in god must go
elsewhere, for atheism is a hole; a vacuum. Some atheists attack
theists for there beliefs because there is something there to attack.
The theist has a hard time attacking atheists because you may not know
what it is that drives the atheist. You know it isn't god but that
doesn't really help. Is it science? Literature? Family? Music?
Nonconformity? Who knows. For me it's science.
Simply put, many atheists who feel that they must attack theists are
aiming at god and religions. They are big targets and very easy to hit.
Many theists who feel that they must attack atheists are aiming at a
hole. There is no bullseye to hit unless you get to know your target.
I shouldn't make it sound as though many theists don't already know
this; this is why science comes under attack every once in a while.
Science is as good a target as a theist could hope for but while it is
big, it's not so easy to hit. The atheist need only attack the idea of
god which can be as easy as hitting a paper plate at your feet. In the
Judeo-Christian religion this is the case because the bible is believed
to be the word of god. The bible is an easy target to hit. Science on
the other hand is a target as big as the Tetons but it is so far away
from too many theists; many have a lot of work to do before they should
think about drawing their bow.
End nominated portion
Seconds anyone?
Peace,
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM? Extra groups removed |
26 Sep 2006 08:56:03 PM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2006 11:39:52 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com>
wrote:
kidigus wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[edited]
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.
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.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Begin nominated portion
Please believe that I don't mean to condescend, but you don't seem to
understand atheism. Atheism is not what atheists believe and live by.
There is nothing there on which to base a belief let alone guide our
lives. What we believe and how we guide our lives are based on a great
many things, as you can imagine, but belief and moral codes cannot be
based on a void.
One who believes in god can base there entire persona on this belief,
as well they should. One who does not believe in god must go
elsewhere, for atheism is a hole; a vacuum. Some atheists attack
theists for there beliefs because there is something there to attack.
The theist has a hard time attacking atheists because you may not know
what it is that drives the atheist. You know it isn't god but that
doesn't really help. Is it science? Literature? Family? Music?
Nonconformity? Who knows. For me it's science.
Simply put, many atheists who feel that they must attack theists are
aiming at god and religions. They are big targets and very easy to hit.
Many theists who feel that they must attack atheists are aiming at a
hole. There is no bullseye to hit unless you get to know your target.
I shouldn't make it sound as though many theists don't already know
this; this is why science comes under attack every once in a while.
Science is as good a target as a theist could hope for but while it is
big, it's not so easy to hit. The atheist need only attack the idea of
god which can be as easy as hitting a paper plate at your feet. In the
Judeo-Christian religion this is the case because the bible is believed
to be the word of god. The bible is an easy target to hit. Science on
the other hand is a target as big as the Tetons but it is so far away
from too many theists; many have a lot of work to do before they should
think about drawing their bow.
End nominated portion
Seconds anyone?
Oh yeah - seconded
great analogy!
Peace,
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM? Extra groups removed |
28 Sep 2006 04:34:32 AM |
|
|
In article <452ed989.391656203@news-west.newscene.com>,
(Kate ) wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 11:39:52 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com>
wrote:
kidigus wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[edited]
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.
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.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Begin nominated portion
Please believe that I don't mean to condescend, but you don't seem to
understand atheism. Atheism is not what atheists believe and live by.
There is nothing there on which to base a belief let alone guide our
lives. What we believe and how we guide our lives are based on a great
many things, as you can imagine, but belief and moral codes cannot be
based on a void.
One who believes in god can base there entire persona on this belief,
as well they should. One who does not believe in god must go
elsewhere, for atheism is a hole; a vacuum. Some atheists attack
theists for there beliefs because there is something there to attack.
The theist has a hard time attacking atheists because you may not know
what it is that drives the atheist. You know it isn't god but that
doesn't really help. Is it science? Literature? Family? Music?
Nonconformity? Who knows. For me it's science.
Simply put, many atheists who feel that they must attack theists are
aiming at god and religions. They are big targets and very easy to hit.
Many theists who feel that they must attack atheists are aiming at a
hole. There is no bullseye to hit unless you get to know your target.
I shouldn't make it sound as though many theists don't already know
this; this is why science comes under attack every once in a while.
Science is as good a target as a theist could hope for but while it is
big, it's not so easy to hit. The atheist need only attack the idea of
god which can be as easy as hitting a paper plate at your feet. In the
Judeo-Christian religion this is the case because the bible is believed
to be the word of god. The bible is an easy target to hit. Science on
the other hand is a target as big as the Tetons but it is so far away
from too many theists; many have a lot of work to do before they should
think about drawing their bow.
End nominated portion
Seconds anyone?
Oh yeah - seconded
Recorded.
great analogy!
Peace,
Jack
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
26 Sep 2006 04:49:41 AM |
|
|
kidigus wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[edited]
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.
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.
Please believe that I don't mean to condescend, but you don't seem to
understand atheism.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate the desire to avoid
needless offence. Actually I agree with much of what you say, but I
believe that in fact it leads to other conclusions.
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.
There is nothing there on which to base a belief let alone guide our
lives. What we believe and how we guide our lives are based on a great
many things, as you can imagine, but belief and moral codes cannot be
based on a void.
I agree entirely. Some decision has to be made when approaching a set
of traffic lights, for instance, on what to do; no-one makes that
decision in a void.
One who believes in god can base there entire persona on this belief,
as well they should. One who does not believe in god must go
elsewhere, for atheism is a hole; a vacuum. Some atheists attack
theists for there beliefs because there is something there to attack.
The theist has a hard time attacking atheists because you may not know
what it is that drives the atheist. You know it isn't god but that
doesn't really help. Is it science? Literature? Family? Music?
Nonconformity? Who knows. For me it's science.
My own opinion is that for most atheists it is conformity. I find no
real knowledge of, or love of, science, among atheists. (I have the
considerable advantage of a Masters in Chemistry from Oxford).
Simply put, many atheists who feel that they must attack theists are
aiming at god and religions. They are big targets and very easy to hit.
Many theists who feel that they must attack atheists are aiming at a
hole. There is no bullseye to hit unless you get to know your target.
I agree. Although it seems entirely reasonable to then depict atheism
as a hate-creed.
I shouldn't make it sound as though many theists don't already know
this; this is why science comes under attack every once in a while.
My impression is that this happens mainly because of the use of science
as a tool with which to attack Christians. If we study tiddlywinks,
and then go around claiming that tiddlywinks proves that Christianity
is a lie, we may encounter a certain resistance to tiddlywinks among
our victims. Those who truly love tiddlywinks, of course, do not try
to use it as a tool to beat others, and still less to poison the well
of the love of learning. My own interest is at the moment in Syriac
studies -- I want people to be interested, to read, and explore. The
last thing that I am going to do, if I were asked to address a bunch of
Moslems, is to tell them Syriac studies shows that Mohammed copied from
Syriac sources. They would hardly listen to anything I said after
that, would they?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
26 Sep 2006 10:08:05 AM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2006 02:49:41 -0700, wrote:
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.
How usual of you Roger to ignore all the good that atheists have done
and think only good comes from a theist. No wonder there are so many
Christians dragging society backwards with thinking like that!
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
26 Sep 2006 10:49:24 AM |
|
|
"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:2dgih2por9dsas8gj9ah3hfrt8t96jc67r@4ax.com...
On 26 Sep 2006 02:49:41 -0700, wrote:
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.
How usual of you Roger to ignore all the good that atheists have done
and think only good comes from a theist. No wonder there are so many
Christians dragging society backwards with thinking like that!
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
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.
Spoken like 'true' atheists. <snicker, snicker>
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
26 Sep 2006 11:13:40 AM |
|
|
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 02:49:41 -0700, wrote:
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.
How usual of you Roger <snarl snipped>
Another reason why atheism is very unappealing is the inability of
those atheists who go around seeking to give and take offence to cope
with any criticism of their religious position. It really will not do.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
26 Sep 2006 01:14:34 PM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2006 09:13:40 -0700, wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 02:49:41 -0700, wrote:
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.
How usual of you Roger <snarl snipped>
Another reason why atheism is very unappealing is the inability of
those atheists who go around seeking to give and take offence to cope
with any criticism of their religious position. It really will not do.
Right Roger, I forgot to put "all the best" at the end, that really
hides your rants against others.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
26 Sep 2006 05:14:12 PM |
|
|
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 and believers in other religions. We can only look at
what Christians do. By that standard, there are no uniquely Christian
values.
One who believes in god can base there entire persona on this belief,
as well they should. One who does not believe in god must go
elsewhere, for atheism is a hole; a vacuum. Some atheists attack
theists for there beliefs because there is something there to attack.
The theist has a hard time attacking atheists because you may not know
what it is that drives the atheist. You know it isn't god but that
doesn't really help. Is it science? Literature? Family? Music?
Nonconformity? Who knows. For me it's science.
My own opinion is that for most atheists it is conformity. I find no
real knowledge of, or love of, science, among atheists. (I have the
considerable advantage of a Masters in Chemistry from Oxford).
Of course the conformists in the United States reject atheism, yet there
are atheists in the United States.
Simply put, many atheists who feel that they must attack theists are
aiming at god and religions. They are big targets and very easy to hit.
Many theists who feel that they must attack atheists are aiming at a
hole. There is no bullseye to hit unless you get to know your target.
I agree. Although it seems entirely reasonable to then depict atheism
as a hate-creed.
It is neither reasonable, nor fair, to depict something that is not a
creed in any sense as not only a creed, but falsely as a hate-filled
one. Again, if you are looking for the hate-filled in the US, you have
to start amongst the people who call themselves 'evangelical' and
'fundamentalist' Christians. Certainly there are many good Christians in
those groups, but there are also bigots, race-baiters, women-haters, and
other folks whose hate used to be hidden under white hoods.
Virginia has a senator, Allen, who went ballistic when it was pointed
out that his mother had Jewish parents. He also made friends with people
in a political group that is nothing more than the KKK in suit and tie.
The Klan itself was adament that it was a Christian organization.
I shouldn't make it sound as though many theists don't already know
this; this is why science comes under attack every once in a while.
My impression is that this happens mainly because of the use of science
as a tool with which to attack Christians.
Any so-called Christian who uses his personal interpretation of the
Bible to lie about history and science, to deny the facts that are
observed by anyone who cares to look, deserves to be condemned by
Christians, as well as atheists. Doctrines like Young Earth Creationism
are anti-Christian and call God a liar. Christians who don't make false
claims about science to suit their personal doctrines have no problem
with scientists defending reality.
If we study tiddlywinks,
and then go around claiming that tiddlywinks proves that Christianity
is a lie, we may encounter a certain resistance to tiddlywinks among
our victims. Those who truly love tiddlywinks, of course, do not try
to use it as a tool to beat others, and still less to poison the well
of the love of learning. My own interest is at the moment in Syriac
studies -- I want people to be interested, to read, and explore. The
last thing that I am going to do, if I were asked to address a bunch of
Moslems, is to tell them Syriac studies shows that Mohammed copied from
Syriac sources. They would hardly listen to anything I said after
that, would they?
The Gospels had older sources, too. Does that offend you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
27 Sep 2006 08:16:43 AM |
|
|
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).
One who believes in god can base there entire persona on this belief,
as well they should. One who does not believe in god must go
elsewhere, for atheism is a hole; a vacuum. Some atheists attack
theists for there beliefs because there is something there to attack.
The theist has a hard time attacking atheists because you may not know
what it is that drives the atheist. You know it isn't god but that
doesn't really help. Is it science? Literature? Family? Music?
Nonconformity? Who knows. For me it's science.
My own opinion is that for most atheists it is conformity. I find no
real knowledge of, or love of, science, among atheists. (I have the
considerable advantage of a Masters in Chemistry from Oxford).
Of course the conformists in the United States reject atheism, yet there
are atheists in the United States.
All of whom live by the period values of their age.
Simply put, many atheists who feel that they must attack theists are
aiming at god and religions. They are big targets and very easy to hit.
Many theists who feel that they must attack atheists are aiming at a
hole. There is no bullseye to hit unless you get to know your target.
I agree. Although it seems entirely reasonable to then depict atheism
as a hate-creed.
It is neither reasonable, nor fair, to depict something that is not a
creed in any sense as not only a creed, but falsely as a hate-filled
one.
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
Non sequitur noted.
The desperation of atheists to keep their own religious position from
examination and discussion is another reason to consider atheism
intellectually substandard.
I shouldn't make it sound as though many theists don't already know
this; this is why science comes under attack every once in a while.
My impression is that this happens mainly because of the use of science
as a tool with which to attack Christians.
Any so-called Christian ...
(Third attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
If we study tiddlywinks,
and then go around claiming that tiddlywinks proves that Christianity
is a lie, we may encounter a certain resistance to tiddlywinks among
our victims. Those who truly love tiddlywinks, of course, do not try
to use it as a tool to beat others, and still less to poison the well
of the love of learning. My own interest is at the moment in Syriac
studies -- I want people to be interested, to read, and explore. The
last thing that I am going to do, if I were asked to address a bunch of
Moslems, is to tell them Syriac studies shows that Mohammed copied from
Syriac sources. They would hardly listen to anything I said after
that, would they?
The Gospels ...
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
Oh dear.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
27 Sep 2006 05:07:27 PM |
|
|
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 the moral values of Christians and atheists and
others come from the society and groups they grow up in and that there
are no uniquely or identifiably Christian moral values.
One who believes in god can base there entire persona on this belief,
as well they should. One who does not believe in god must go
elsewhere, for atheism is a hole; a vacuum. Some atheists attack
theists for there beliefs because there is something there to attack.
The theist has a hard time attacking atheists because you may not know
what it is that drives the atheist. You know it isn't god but that
doesn't really help. Is it science? Literature? Family? Music?
Nonconformity? Who knows. For me it's science.
My own opinion is that for most atheists it is conformity. I find no
real knowledge of, or love of, science, among atheists. (I have the
considerable advantage of a Masters in Chemistry from Oxford).
Of course the conformists in the United States reject atheism, yet there
are atheists in the United States.
All of whom live by the period values of their age.
As do the Christians. Your criticism of atheists is too simplistic and,
because it applies to all others, meaningless.
Simply put, many atheists who feel that they must attack theists are
aiming at god and religions. They are big targets and very easy to hit.
Many theists who feel that they must attack atheists are aiming at a
hole. There is no bullseye to hit unless you get to know your target.
I agree. Although it seems entirely reasonable to then depict atheism
as a hate-creed.
It is neither reasonable, nor fair, to depict something that is not a
creed in any sense as not only a creed, but falsely as a hate-filled
one.
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
Non sequitur noted.
You snipped what I posted and then claimed that it was a non sequitur.
How interesting.
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, nor meaningful, many
Christians are totally unwilling to discuss their beliefs. Again, you
have failed completely to support the attempt that you made to create a
distinction between atheists and theists in an analysis of morality.
I shouldn't make it sound as though many theists don't already know
this; this is why science comes under attack every once in a while.
My impression is that this happens mainly because of the use of science
as a tool with which to attack Christians.
Any so-called Christian ...
(Third attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
So, even though you know that there is no difference, you refuse to
discuss it, snipping what I wrote and then alleging that I was changing
the subject when I manifestly was not.
If we study tiddlywinks,
and then go around claiming that tiddlywinks proves that Christianity
is a lie, we may encounter a certain resistance to tiddlywinks among
our victims. Those who truly love tiddlywinks, of course, do not try
to use it as a tool to beat others, and still less to poison the well
of the love of learning. My own interest is at the moment in Syriac
studies -- I want people to be interested, to read, and explore. The
last thing that I am going to do, if I were asked to address a bunch of
Moslems, is to tell them Syriac studies shows that Mohammed copied from
Syriac sources. They would hardly listen to anything I said after
that, would they?
The Gospels ...
(Attempt to change subject to attack on Christianity snipped).
I'm sorry that you are so thin-skinned. It must be rough for you to deal
with reality.
Oh dear.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 02:55:58 AM |
|
|
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.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Da Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 03:23:17 AM |
|
|
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 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.
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.
You, OTOH, posit a deity. Ok, have at it,
we'll all wait patiently for your proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 10:45:39 AM |
|
|
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 -- then frankly any statements about what we do not
believe are merely rationalisations.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Da Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 12:03:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
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 -- then frankly any statements about what we do not
believe are merely rationalisations.
Dishonest little pecker, aren't you?
(unsnip):
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.
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.
You, OTOH, posit a deity. Ok, have at it,
we'll all wait patiently for your proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 04:06:48 PM |
|
|
"Da Man" <da@man.net> wrote in message.
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
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 -- then frankly any statements about what we do not
believe are merely rationalisations.
Dishonest little pecker, aren't you?
(unsnip):
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.
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.
You, OTOH, posit a deity. Ok, have at it,
we'll all wait patiently for your proof.
This is a good example of what I call the Deism argument. Read my book, 12
Common Atheist Arguments (refuted), follow the links on the website.
In the Deism argument, the atheist ignores the actual beleifs of Christians,
and makes up an abstract transcendental God, then argues agaisnt certain
logical difficulties in such a figure.
You are making a very simple mistake with the comparison to the Loch Ness
monster, Bigfeet, or vampires. That is between the contingent and the
necessary.
If you don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, either you haven't been
exposed to the photographs of a monster swimming in the Loch, or you believe
something about them. You might beleive that what appears to be a monster in
the far distance is actually a duck in the near distnace, for example. Or
you could legitimately say that you don't know much about photographs,
except that many unusual things happen.
Now a Christian says that the moral law is a reflection of man's innate
knowledge of God. As an atheist, you have been exposed to that idea, and
therefore you must think something about the moral law. You might hold that
it doesn't exist, or is an illusion created by our evolutionary history and
holds many, but is not binding on you personally. Or you might think that
progressive forces of history gradually put power and wealth into the hands
of the poor, and that morality is actually a confused way of talking about
historical progression. Or you might think that humans have rights and that
protection of those rights is the supreme virtue.
There are lots of possible answers. However "I have no position on the moral
law, prove your position" is very weak. Basically the atheist who argues
that has disqualified himself as a thinker.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
