| 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: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 05:23:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:06:48 +0100, in alt.atheism
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
<1bCdnc61crgW2IHYRVnyrQ@bt.com>:
"Da Man" <da@man.net> wrote in message.
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.
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.
They all fit into a set that contains no supporting data. You may be
willing to argue that there is a real difference among them, but you'll
have to show us why the one you like is special.
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.
Yes, there are many reasons not to accept the photographs as valid
evidence for a monster.
Now a Christian says that the moral law is a reflection of man's innate
knowledge of God.
Some Christians say that, but that presupposes that the moral law has
something to do with any gods in any ways.
As an atheist, you have been exposed to that idea, and
therefore you must think something about the moral law.
Yes.
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.
It would depend on what definition of 'moral law' you happen to be
using. The definition varies by context and user.
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.
That would be the conception of America's Founding Fathers, the ones
that hyper-zealots claim share the same sort of 'Christianity' that they
preach. Of course, that only works if they don't pay attention to what
the Founding Fathers wrote.
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.
Your argument is with who insists that there is
something special about his personal, apparently Christian, morality and
that others, who learned their morality in much the same fashion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
29 Sep 2006 10:16:15 AM |
|
|
Da Man wrote:
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?
No answer? I thought not.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Da Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
29 Sep 2006 10:34:28 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Da Man wrote:
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?
No answer? I thought not.
Argument ad snippage again? I thought so.
(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: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
29 Sep 2006 05:04:05 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 08:16:15 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159542975.715020.176610@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Da Man wrote:
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?
No answer? I thought not.
You have demonstrated that you are morally bankrupt. You lie. You
deceive. You bear false witness. You defame.
All the best,
No, you don't even do it well.
Roger Pearse
You make a mockery of the religion that you claim to follow.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
28 Sep 2006 05:04:34 PM |
|
|
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, just as those who adhere to
varying religions do.
You have no point here.
-- then frankly any statements about what we do not
believe are merely rationalisations.
Well, you've pretty well proven why you cannot defend your religion. It
is nothing but mere rationalizations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
29 Sep 2006 10:18:21 AM |
|
|
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, ...
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.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
29 Sep 2006 05:08:46 PM |
|
|
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, 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.
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 fourth form, you'll understand why people mock your
pathetic misrepresentations of what I have said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
29 Sep 2006 11:39:44 PM |
|
|
"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.
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.
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,
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.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 01:04:22 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"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. ...
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of Jesus....
I wouldn't pay any attention. The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system, so every comment he makes to anything
consists of an attempt to change the subject to get discussing
Christianity, or discussing whether I am a Bad Person, so that he isn't
the one on the defensive.
It's pretty shabby tactics, but then atheists as a group are pretty
shabby.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Your Logic Tutor" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 12:51:47 PM |
|
|
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system, moron, "Atheism is
characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
-- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheists who are agnostic like me and Thomas Huxley go beyond mere absence
of belief in the existence of gods to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on
principle, religious belief in the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/E-E.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 02:36:04 PM |
|
|
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system, moron, "Atheism is
characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
-- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
That's a canard. A Buddhist is not an atheist. Nor in an animist who
believes the animals he kills have spirits which must be propriated, but
doesn't necessarily beleive in and god. Pagan gods were not really
supernatural, so they were not "theists" in the sense we mean by the term.
An atheist is someone who rejects the Chrisitian God without accepting
another religion.
You can argue about a few marignal cases like the Greek philospher Diogenes.
Essentially by atheism we mean "that intellectual movement which has its
roots in the eighteenth century Enlightenment". Modern atheist are atheists
because of the enlightenment, not because of abstract thinking about God or
gods conducted in a vacuum.
Atheists who are agnostic like me and Thomas Huxley go beyond mere absence
of belief in the existence of gods to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on
principle, religious belief in the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/E-E.html
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 02:20:27 PM |
|
|
In article <xtWdnUusyOstM4PYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor, aka Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system, moron
Septic's version of atheism is definitely a belief system.
Atheists who are agnostic like me and Thomas Huxley
While Thomas was agnostic, and, indeed, in a sense created agnosticism,
Septic is anti-agnostic in the extreme. At least as anti-agnostic as
most theists.
But Septic is also a sanctimonious hypocrite about his atheism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 07:27:50 PM |
|
|
Septic wrote:
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system,
Your Strawman, Septic. He didn't say atheism was a belief system. He
implied that a person has a belief system. Since human life is
impossible without beliefs, his implication is well-founded. Even
atheists have beliefs, Septic. And unless those beliefs are completely
unrelated and unconnected to one another, they form a belief system.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 01:49:01 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
Septic wrote:
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system,
Your Strawman, Septic. He didn't say atheism was a belief system. He
implied that a person has a belief system. Since human life is
impossible without beliefs, his implication is well-founded. Even
atheists have beliefs, Septic. And unless those beliefs are completely
unrelated and unconnected to one another, they form a belief system.
It depends how you use the word "atheism".
You could say that it means "those who don't believe in God" or "those who
are heirs to the intellectual movement that began with the Enlightenment".
The second definition is by the far the more useful, but you can find a few
isolated examples of people who it is reasonable to describe as "atheists"
who don't get their atheism from the enlightenment.
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 12:23:34 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
Septic wrote:
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system,
Your Strawman, Septic. He didn't say atheism was a belief system. He
implied that a person has a belief system. Since human life is
impossible without beliefs, his implication is well-founded. Even
atheists have beliefs, Septic. And unless those beliefs are completely
unrelated and unconnected to one another, they form a belief system.
It depends how you use the word "atheism".
You could say that it means "those who don't believe in God" or "those who
are heirs to the intellectual movement that began with the Enlightenment".
The second definition is by the far the more useful, but you can find a few
isolated examples of people who it is reasonable to describe as "atheists"
who don't get their atheism from the enlightenment.
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 02:53:59 PM |
|
|
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
Septic wrote:
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system,
Your Strawman, Septic. He didn't say atheism was a belief system. He
implied that a person has a belief system. Since human life is
impossible without beliefs, his implication is well-founded. Even
atheists have beliefs, Septic. And unless those beliefs are completely
unrelated and unconnected to one another, they form a belief system.
It depends how you use the word "atheism".
You could say that it means "those who don't believe in God" or "those
who
are heirs to the intellectual movement that began with the
Enlightenment".
The second definition is by the far the more useful, but you can find a
few
isolated examples of people who it is reasonable to describe as
"atheists"
who don't get their atheism from the enlightenment.
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their minds,
subject to a few limitations of course.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
02 Oct 2006 04:44:57 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
Septic wrote:
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system,
Your Strawman, Septic. He didn't say atheism was a belief system. He
implied that a person has a belief system. Since human life is
impossible without beliefs, his implication is well-founded. Even
atheists have beliefs, Septic. And unless those beliefs are completely
unrelated and unconnected to one another, they form a belief system.
It depends how you use the word "atheism".
You could say that it means "those who don't believe in God" or "those
who
are heirs to the intellectual movement that began with the
Enlightenment".
The second definition is by the far the more useful, but you can find a
few
isolated examples of people who it is reasonable to describe as
"atheists"
who don't get their atheism from the enlightenment.
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their minds,
subject to a few limitations of course.
Psychoanalisis on Usenet is worth exactly what it costs. Why do you
continue to think the matter is more complicated than it really is? Why
do you continue to torture logic and semantics this way? Atheism, in
its simplist form is lack of belief in gods. For the ten thousandth
time, bald is NOT a hair color.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man Sept 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
What causes that lack of belief is within
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
02 Oct 2006 12:16:43 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
Septic wrote:
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system,
Your Strawman, Septic. He didn't say atheism was a belief system. He
implied that a person has a belief system. Since human life is
impossible without beliefs, his implication is well-founded. Even
atheists have beliefs, Septic. And unless those beliefs are completely
unrelated and unconnected to one another, they form a belief system.
It depends how you use the word "atheism".
You could say that it means "those who don't believe in God" or "those
who
are heirs to the intellectual movement that began with the
Enlightenment".
The second definition is by the far the more useful, but you can find a
few
isolated examples of people who it is reasonable to describe as
"atheists"
who don't get their atheism from the enlightenment.
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their minds,
subject to a few limitations of course.
You apparently misunderstood what you read, and you now appear to be
trying to lie about the beliefs of most atheists. You offered no
evidence that someone attributing their lack atheism to the lack of
evidence has no insight into their own beliefs; you merely asserted it,
and I'm sure now will assert that it's intellectually dishonest of me
to call you on it. Why do you think you can get away with stating
"that is not the reason why anyone in a Western culture is an atheist"?
What OTHER reason would there be? Are you giving everyone in
non-western cultures permission to use that reasoning to explain their
atheisM?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A" |
|
| Title: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
01 Oct 2006 04:50:51 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their minds,
subject to a few limitations of course.
Let me get this straight. You've determined that
people in the west are atheists *not* because
they see no evidence of any gods, but rather by
virtue of getting their views from "thinkers of
the Enlightenment"? And further, you'd deduced
this by reading what they say on the Usenet?
You must get a *different* Usenet than we get.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
01 Oct 2006 06:01:18 PM |
|
|
"A" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:aI-dnVtyyZ-hpb3YnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their
minds, subject to a few limitations of course.
Let me get this straight. You've determined that
people in the west are atheists *not* because
they see no evidence of any gods, but rather by
virtue of getting their views from "thinkers of
the Enlightenment"? And further, you'd deduced
this by reading what they say on the Usenet?
You must get a *different* Usenet than we get.
I read on usenet claims to have arrived at atheism by a process of abstract
reasoning from the alleged lack of evidence for God.
I treat those claims very sceptically, because I know a little bit about
intellectual history. In particular I know that associated claims such as
"atheism has been with us since the dawn of time" are either false, or as
near proven to be false as makes no real difference.
Therefore I conclude what the atheist is thinking, what his level of
education must be, where his ideas derived from, and so forth.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
01 Oct 2006 07:31:23 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 00:01:18 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> let us all know that:
"A" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:aI-dnVtyyZ-hpb3YnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their
minds, subject to a few limitations of course.
Let me get this straight. You've determined that
people in the west are atheists *not* because
they see no evidence of any gods, but rather by
virtue of getting their views from "thinkers of
the Enlightenment"? And further, you'd deduced
this by reading what they say on the Usenet?
You must get a *different* Usenet than we get.
I read on usenet claims to have arrived at atheism by a process of abstract
reasoning from the alleged lack of evidence for God.
I treat those claims very sceptically, because I know a little bit about
intellectual history. In particular I know that associated claims such as
"atheism has been with us since the dawn of time" are either false, or as
near proven to be false as makes no real difference.
And you know this how?
Please be SPECIFIC, with scholarly citations.
Otherwise, I'll have to mark you down as just whining because
you hate atheists.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
07 Oct 2006 11:50:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:31:23 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
- Refer: <gdn0i21ms98fd5gk37bm46jscd40g32dcc@4ax.com>
In alt.atheism On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 00:01:18 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> let us all know that:
"A" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:aI-dnVtyyZ-hpb3YnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their
minds, subject to a few limitations of course.
Let me get this straight. You've determined that
people in the west are atheists *not* because
they see no evidence of any gods, but rather by
virtue of getting their views from "thinkers of
the Enlightenment"? And further, you'd deduced
this by reading what they say on the Usenet?
You must get a *different* Usenet than we get.
I read on usenet claims to have arrived at atheism by a process of abstract
reasoning from the alleged lack of evidence for God.
I treat those claims very sceptically, because I know a little bit about
intellectual history. In particular I know that associated claims such as
"atheism has been with us since the dawn of time" are either false, or as
near proven to be false as makes no real difference.
And you know this how?
Please be SPECIFIC, with scholarly citations.
Otherwise, I'll have to mark you down as just whining because
you hate atheists.
Do it now, and avoid the wait.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
08 Oct 2006 04:07:40 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:31:23 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
I read on usenet claims to have arrived at atheism by a process of
abstract
reasoning from the alleged lack of evidence for God.
I treat those claims very sceptically, because I know a little bit about
intellectual history. In particular I know that associated claims such as
"atheism has been with us since the dawn of time" are either false, or as
near proven to be false as makes no real difference.
And you know this how?
Please be SPECIFIC, with scholarly citations.
Otherwise, I'll have to mark you down as just whining because
you hate atheists.
Do it now, and avoid the wait.
One of the sad consequences of the creationism in schools controversy is
that evolutionists have won the legal case by surrendering their
philosophical case, and argued on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.
As if the decision by the editor of Nature about which articles to include
in his magazine makes any difference in the great scheme of things.
Similarly, this demand for scholarly citations is a bit curious.
Durkenheim, whom I mentioned, was certainly a scholar. Obviously not good
enough.
If you read any history of the Enlightemement you will find that the
movement was begun by Deists, who gradually changed into atheists. For
instnace read Shelleys' pamphlet on the "necessity of atheism". He gives a
Deist argument against the virgin birth.
Or you could read Thomas Paine. Or Burke on the French Revolution. You will
see that the established historical consensus is in fact correct. Modern
atheism does derive from these thikers, most of whom were intially Deists.
Prior to the Enlightenment, there were few if any atheists in Western
cultures. You might want to argue about exactly how to use the word - in
fact it meant "heretic" in sixteenth century usage - or offer some marginal
figure. The claim that atheism is a constant is simply false. The historical
record doesn't support that, the anthropological record certainly doesn't.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
02 Oct 2006 12:26:19 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"A" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:aI-dnVtyyZ-hpb3YnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their
minds, subject to a few limitations of course.
Let me get this straight. You've determined that
people in the west are atheists *not* because
they see no evidence of any gods, but rather by
virtue of getting their views from "thinkers of
the Enlightenment"? And further, you'd deduced
this by reading what they say on the Usenet?
You must get a *different* Usenet than we get.
I read on usenet claims to have arrived at atheism by a process of abstract
reasoning from the alleged lack of evidence for God.
I treat those claims very sceptically, because I know a little bit about
intellectual history. In particular I know that associated claims such as
"atheism has been with us since the dawn of time" are either false, or as
near proven to be false as makes no real difference.
No, sweetheart. You don't know that; you wish it.
Therefore I conclude what the atheist is thinking, what his level of
education must be, where his ideas derived from, and so forth.
Skepticism is good. Since you're obviously so much more intelligent
and better educated that all us hick atheists, why don't you present
the objective, verifiable evidence of deities that you appear to
believe has settled the matter; you seem to think we've been unable to
track it down. You say it's an alleged lack; surely you must have some
really solid reason for saying so, and for implying that atheists are
somehow either lying or stupid. In light of my pointing out that for
most of recorded history it was a very bad idea to admit one's atheism,
provide evidence that the statement "atheism has been with us since the
dawn of time" is either false, or as near proven to be false as makes
no real difference.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
02 Oct 2006 01:55:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 00:01:18 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"A" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:aI-dnVtyyZ-hpb3YnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their
minds, subject to a few limitations of course.
Let me get this straight. You've determined that
people in the west are atheists *not* because
they see no evidence of any gods, but rather by
virtue of getting their views from "thinkers of
the Enlightenment"? And further, you'd deduced
this by reading what they say on the Usenet?
You must get a *different* Usenet than we get.
I read on usenet claims to have arrived at atheism by a process of abstract
reasoning from the alleged lack of evidence for God.
I treat those claims very sceptically, because I know a little bit about
intellectual history. In particular I know that associated claims such as
"atheism has been with us since the dawn of time" are either false, or as
near proven to be false as makes no real difference.
Therefore I conclude what the atheist is thinking, what his level of
education must be, where his ideas derived from, and so forth.
You're a liar and an idiot, Malcolm. Go away.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
08 Oct 2006 01:21:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 00:01:18 +0100, "Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"A" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:aI-dnVtyyZ-hpb3YnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their
minds, subject to a few limitations of course.
Let me get this straight. You've determined that
people in the west are atheists *not* because
they see no evidence of any gods, but rather by
virtue of getting their views from "thinkers of
the Enlightenment"? And further, you'd deduced
this by reading what they say on the Usenet?
You must get a *different* Usenet than we get.
I read on usenet claims to have arrived at atheism by a process of abstract
reasoning from the alleged lack of evidence for God.
I treat those claims very sceptically, because I know a little bit about
intellectual history. In particular I know that associated claims such as
"atheism has been with us since the dawn of time" are either false,
It almost certainly has been through the majority if not all of
human existence.
or as near proven to be false as makes no real difference.
That all depends on the definition of "atheism". I've noticed
that people who believe God does NOT exist are atheists. But
so are people who don't have a true belief one way or the other.
It's stupid, but that's how it is. To make it even more stupid, people
who believe it cannot be known whether or not God exists are
agnostics, but holding that belief is more of the first atheistic idea
since it would mean that God could never have communicated
the knowledge of his existence to any human even if he DOES
exist...an incredibly stupid in itself.
Therefore I conclude what the atheist is thinking, what his level of
education must be, where his ideas derived from, and so forth.
Oh bull *****. There are a bunch of different atheists with
differing beliefs, especially if you throw in the agnostics along
with them as they need to be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
07 Oct 2006 11:49:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:50:51 -0600, A <a@man.com> wrote:
- Refer: <aI-dnVtyyZ-hpb3YnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@adelphia.com>
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
I read what atheists write on usenet, which tells me what is in their minds,
subject to a few limitations of course.
Let me get this straight. You've determined that
people in the west are atheists *not* because
they see no evidence of any gods, but rather by
virtue of getting their views from "thinkers of
the Enlightenment"? And further, you'd deduced
this by reading what they say on the Usenet?
You must get a *different* Usenet than we get.
Malcolm is not even on the same planet as us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "joe" |
|
| Title: Re: What is an atheist? (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
02 Oct 2006 04:17:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:50:51 -0600, A <a@man.com> wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723414.809367.275690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight
into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western
culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the
Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
this is that ancient Gnostic idea of enlightenment through ones own
special insight into the cosmos... direct knowledge of God through
awareness of the divine spark within.
The term ' gnosis ' ( to know ) is a Greek word expressing a type of
understanding or consciousness gained through personal experience. It
is through this type of transcendental experience that followers of
Gnostic belief systems seek escape from ignorance... everyone who is
not a Gnostic is therefore ignorant and needs gnostic enlightenment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 12:39:11 PM |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2006 10:23:34 -0700, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
Septic wrote:
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system,
Your Strawman, Septic. He didn't say atheism was a belief system. He
implied that a person has a belief system. Since human life is
impossible without beliefs, his implication is well-founded. Even
atheists have beliefs, Septic. And unless those beliefs are completely
unrelated and unconnected to one another, they form a belief system.
It depends how you use the word "atheism".
You could say that it means "those who don't believe in God" or "those who
are heirs to the intellectual movement that began with the Enlightenment".
The second definition is by the far the more useful, but you can find a few
isolated examples of people who it is reasonable to describe as "atheists"
who don't get their atheism from the enlightenment.
The point is that if an atheist says "I am an atheist because that is a
default position in the absence of any evidence" then he has no insight into
his actual beliefs. That is not the reason why anyone in a Western culture
is an atheist. They get their views from the thinkers of the Enlightenement,
who beleived in many other things besides the untruth of Christainity.
Interestingly, most of them were not atheists but Deists.
Thank you for reading the minds of atheists.
Worse than that - he is being arrogantly nasty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 09:19:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Septic wrote:
<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
... The low-grade atheist is incapable of
discussing his own belief-system
Straw man alert. Atheism is not a belief system,
Your Strawman, Septic. He didn't say atheism was a belief system. He
implied that a person has a belief system. Since human life is
impossible without beliefs, his implication is well-founded. Even
atheists have beliefs, Septic. And unless those beliefs are completely
unrelated and unconnected to one another, they form a belief system.
No, Roger tries to imply atheism is a belief system when he claims
"[t]he low-grade atheist is incapable of discussing his own
belief-system," a question he refuse to answer himself, and which is a
transparent lie; every time any atheist even begins to attempt to
discuss his or her belief system, Roger cuts and runs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
