| 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 05:20:29 PM |
|
|
JessHC wrote:
jientho@aol.com 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,
Yes.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 10:42:55 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 29 Sep 2006 23:04:22 -0700,
let us all know that:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
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,
Which is....?
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 10:56:46 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Sep 2006 23:04:22 -0700,
let us all know that:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
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,
Which is....?
And another atheist proves my statement true.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 06:08:56 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 30 Sep 2006 08:56:46 -0700,
let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Sep 2006 23:04:22 -0700,
let us all know that:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
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,
Which is....?
And another atheist proves my statement true.
Aha. So I'm waiting for the answer to my question. I predict
you will fail to answer it. In fact, I predict that you cannot answer
it, since you're lying your ***** off.
I would, of course, love to be proven wrong here. But I know I
won't be, since you're a coward.
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: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 09:14:33 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 30 Sep 2006 08:56:46 -0700,
let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Sep 2006 23:04:22 -0700,
let us all know that:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
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,
Which is....?
And another atheist proves my statement true.
Aha. So I'm waiting for the answer to my question. I predict
you will fail to answer it. In fact, I predict that you cannot answer
it, since you're lying your ***** off.
I would, of course, love to be proven wrong here. But I know I
won't be, since you're a coward.
It's all one way with Roger. He may insult, but nobody else can. He
may refuse to answer questions, but nobody else can. He may make
unsupported assertions, but nobody else can. I think he must have
gotten special dispensation directly from god.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 11:22:08 AM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2006 08:56:46 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1159631806.825615.80460@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Sep 2006 23:04:22 -0700,
let us all know that:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
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,
Which is....?
And another atheist proves my statement true.
Once again, you merely assert what you are incapable of supporting with
evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 02:30:11 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:kc6th21dsb181t7m54bhdcqn5d2p7u4lo6@4ax.com...
On 30 Sep 2006 08:56:46 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1159631806.825615.80460@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Sep 2006 23:04:22 -0700,
let us all know that:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
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,
Which is....?
And another atheist proves my statement true.
Once again, you merely assert what you are incapable of supporting with
evidence.
If you have to ask what your own belief system is, then it is fairly natural
to asusme that either you don't have one, or are incapable of defining it.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 03:06:18 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:kc6th21dsb181t7m54bhdcqn5d2p7u4lo6@4ax.com...
On 30 Sep 2006 08:56:46 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1159631806.825615.80460@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 29 Sep 2006 23:04:22 -0700,
let us all know that:
Malcolm wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
On 29 Sep 2006 08:18:21 -0700, in alt.atheism
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,
Which is....?
And another atheist proves my statement true.
Once again, you merely assert what you are incapable of supporting with
evidence.
If you have to ask what your own belief system is, then it is fairly natural
to asusme that either you don't have one, or are incapable of defining it.
Roger is the one asserting atheists can't discuss their belief systems,
and then WITHOUT FAIL snipping any attempt by atheists to discuss their
belief systems. He usually offers the red herring that it was sort of
personal insult or undefined "attack on christianity" unworthy of
response, but never offering any evidence or explanation supporting
THAT assertion. For some reason, he seems to think anyone aquiring any
sort of moral position from the society in which that person lives has
committed some grevious personal failure, but hasn't explained why that
should be, and hasn't explained why we should even consider the
possiblity he might be any differrent from anyone else in a given
society, which seems to be what he wishes us to infer. He is also
guilty of failing to discuss, defend, or define his own belief system,
apart from implications of his constant ad hominems and snide remarks
against atheists. Is there a rule somewhere that permits theists to
make unsupported assertions and to dodge questions, and to treat those
with whom they disagree with such contempt? Is THAT the morality, the
"belief system," he pretends is superior to atheism?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 09:07:35 AM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 23:04:22 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159596262.231040.175690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
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.
Since you are engaging in the shabbiest tactics here, does that mean
that you are the most assertively anti-god?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 09:18:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:07:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 23:04:22 -0700, in alt.atheism
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
<1159596262.231040.175690@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
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....
Judging by the "morality" of Malcolm, Pearse and the majority of
cross-posting theists, Jesus must have been the same kind of lying,
hypocritical, thoroughly nasty piece of work they are.
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.
The guy is an deliberately nasty, in-you-face, personal liar.
It's pretty shabby tactics, but then atheists as a group are pretty
shabby.
Thie sheer nastiness and dishonesty of the sanctimonious hypocrite.
Since you are engaging in the shabbiest tactics here, does that mean
that you are the most assertively anti-god?
Honesty and Pearse are diametrically opposite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 02:28:46 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:07:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of
Jesus....
Judging by the "morality" of Malcolm, Pearse and the majority of
cross-posting theists, Jesus must have been the same kind of lying,
hypocritical, thoroughly nasty piece of work they are.
So that's at least a defensible position.
If you can show that atheists, as a group, are more moral than theists such
as Roger and I, ypu've got quite a strong case for atheism.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 03:08:55 PM |
|
|
In article <r5adndiP1tJYWIPYRVny2w@bt.com>,
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:07:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of
Jesus....
Judging by the "morality" of Malcolm, Pearse and the majority of
cross-posting theists, Jesus must have been the same kind of lying,
hypocritical, thoroughly nasty piece of work they are.
So that's at least a defensible position.
If you can show that atheists, as a group, are more moral than theists such
as Roger and I, ypu've got quite a strong case for atheism.
I have heard, but cannot verify or refute, that the incidence of
atheists in US prisons is lower than in the general public, and the
incidence of fundamentalists is higher.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 03:11:53 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:07:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of
Jesus....
Judging by the "morality" of Malcolm, Pearse and the majority of
cross-posting theists, Jesus must have been the same kind of lying,
hypocritical, thoroughly nasty piece of work they are.
So that's at least a defensible position.
If you can show that atheists, as a group, are more moral than theists such
as Roger and I, ypu've got quite a strong case for atheism.
I assert that honesty is a more positve moral postion than dishonesty
because of the many benefits honesty brings to society and personal
relationships. Compare the number of atheists who have lied to Roger
with the amount of dishonesty Roger manages to squeez into one post;
for example, his constant deletion of points he wishes to avoid
discussing, his constant unsupported assertions like atheists'
inability to discuss their belief systems, his constant sanctimonious
snide behavior towards people with whom he disagrees, his refusal to
actually answer any questions put to him. The evidece is that atheists
are more honest that Roger, and therefore more moral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A-Man" |
|
| Title: Roger Dodger (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
30 Sep 2006 03:36:11 PM |
|
|
JessHC wrote:
I assert that honesty is a more positve moral postion than dishonesty
because of the many benefits honesty brings to society and personal
relationships. Compare the number of atheists who have lied to Roger
with the amount of dishonesty Roger manages to squeez into one post;
for example, his constant deletion of points he wishes to avoid
discussing, his constant unsupported assertions like atheists'
inability to discuss their belief systems, his constant sanctimonious
snide behavior towards people with whom he disagrees, his refusal to
actually answer any questions put to him.
Maybe that's where they came up with the
term "Roger Dodger"?
The evidece is that atheists
are more honest that Roger, and therefore more moral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Roger Dodger (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
30 Sep 2006 05:57:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:36:11 -0600, A-Man <a@man.com> wrote:
JessHC wrote:
I assert that honesty is a more positve moral postion than dishonesty
because of the many benefits honesty brings to society and personal
relationships. Compare the number of atheists who have lied to Roger
with the amount of dishonesty Roger manages to squeez into one post;
for example, his constant deletion of points he wishes to avoid
discussing, his constant unsupported assertions like atheists'
inability to discuss their belief systems, his constant sanctimonious
snide behavior towards people with whom he disagrees, his refusal to
actually answer any questions put to him.
Maybe that's where they came up with the
term "Roger Dodger"?
He was a character the Beano.
The evidece is that atheists
are more honest that Roger, and therefore more moral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Roger Dodger (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
30 Sep 2006 06:12:41 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:57:48 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:36:11 -0600, A-Man <a@man.com> wrote:
JessHC wrote:
I assert that honesty is a more positve moral postion than dishonesty
because of the many benefits honesty brings to society and personal
relationships. Compare the number of atheists who have lied to Roger
with the amount of dishonesty Roger manages to squeez into one post;
for example, his constant deletion of points he wishes to avoid
discussing, his constant unsupported assertions like atheists'
inability to discuss their belief systems, his constant sanctimonious
snide behavior towards people with whom he disagrees, his refusal to
actually answer any questions put to him.
Maybe that's where they came up with the
term "Roger Dodger"?
He was a character the Beano.
....in the Beano.
The evidece is that atheists
are more honest that Roger, and therefore more moral.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A-Man" |
|
| Title: Roger Dodger (Was: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible) |
30 Sep 2006 03:35:15 PM |
|
|
JessHC wrote:
I assert that honesty is a more positve moral postion than dishonesty
because of the many benefits honesty brings to society and personal
relationships. Compare the number of atheists who have lied to Roger
with the amount of dishonesty Roger manages to squeez into one post;
for example, his constant deletion of points he wishes to avoid
discussing, his constant unsupported assertions like atheists'
inability to discuss their belief systems, his constant sanctimonious
snide behavior towards people with whom he disagrees, his refusal to
actually answer any questions put to him.
Maybe that's where they came up with the
term "Roger Dodger"?
The evidece is that atheists
are more honest that Roger, and therefore more moral.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 05:48:45 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2006 13:11:53 -0700, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:07:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of
Jesus....
Judging by the "morality" of Malcolm, Pearse and the majority of
cross-posting theists, Jesus must have been the same kind of lying,
hypocritical, thoroughly nasty piece of work they are.
So that's at least a defensible position.
If you can show that atheists, as a group, are more moral than theists such
as Roger and I, ypu've got quite a strong case for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need a case.
I assert that honesty is a more positve moral postion than dishonesty
because of the many benefits honesty brings to society and personal
relationships. Compare the number of atheists who have lied to Roger
with the amount of dishonesty Roger manages to squeez into one post;
for example, his constant deletion of points he wishes to avoid
discussing, his constant unsupported assertions like atheists'
inability to discuss their belief systems, his constant sanctimonious
snide behavior towards people with whom he disagrees, his refusal to
actually answer any questions put to him. The evidece is that atheists
are more honest that Roger, and therefore more moral.
Why do Malcolm and Roger keep pretending that atheism is anything
different than not believing in pixies? It's a non-event that neither
motivates nor justifies anything. Unlike theism. Nor does it pretend
to provide morality - unlike theism which claims to and fails as
evidenced by the behaviour of Malcolm and Roger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 01:42:37 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
Why do Malcolm and Roger keep pretending that atheism is anything
different than not believing in pixies? It's a non-event that neither
motivates nor justifies anything. Unlike theism. Nor does it pretend
to provide morality - unlike theism which claims to and fails as
evidenced by the behaviour of Malcolm and Roger.
Because the two propositions
"There exist little men who live in burrows and can go invisible"
and
"There exists a being who is the root cause of all that is"
are only very superficially similar. One is essentially limited, the other
is about the fundamental nature of reality. Disbelief in pixies has quite
different implications from disbelief in God.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 12:48:09 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 07:42:37 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> let us all know that:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
Why do Malcolm and Roger keep pretending that atheism is anything
different than not believing in pixies? It's a non-event that neither
motivates nor justifies anything. Unlike theism. Nor does it pretend
to provide morality - unlike theism which claims to and fails as
evidenced by the behaviour of Malcolm and Roger.
Because the two propositions
"There exist little men who live in burrows and can go invisible"
and
"There exists a being who is the root cause of all that is"
are only very superficially similar. One is essentially limited, the other
is about the fundamental nature of reality. Disbelief in pixies has quite
different implications from disbelief in God.
No it doesn't.
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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 12:58:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:48:09 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 07:42:37 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> let us all know that:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
Why do Malcolm and Roger keep pretending that atheism is anything
different than not believing in pixies? It's a non-event that neither
motivates nor justifies anything. Unlike theism. Nor does it pretend
to provide morality - unlike theism which claims to and fails as
evidenced by the behaviour of Malcolm and Roger.
Because the two propositions
"There exist little men who live in burrows and can go invisible"
and
"There exists a being who is the root cause of all that is"
are only very superficially similar. One is essentially limited, the other
is about the fundamental nature of reality. Disbelief in pixies has quite
different implications from disbelief in God.
No it doesn't.
What the arroant pillock means is that because it's different for him,
he insists it's different to us.
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: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 12:22:10 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
Why do Malcolm and Roger keep pretending that atheism is anything
different than not believing in pixies? It's a non-event that neither
motivates nor justifies anything. Unlike theism. Nor does it pretend
to provide morality - unlike theism which claims to and fails as
evidenced by the behaviour of Malcolm and Roger.
Because the two propositions
"There exist little men who live in burrows and can go invisible"
and
"There exists a being who is the root cause of all that is"
are only very superficially similar. One is essentially limited, the other
is about the fundamental nature of reality. Disbelief in pixies has quite
different implications from disbelief in God.
The implication or scope of a belief doesn't alter it's validity; if
there is no objective, verifiable evidence for it, it is just an
unsupported belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 02:52:04 PM |
|
|
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723330.777625.240760@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
Why do Malcolm and Roger keep pretending that atheism is anything
different than not believing in pixies? It's a non-event that neither
motivates nor justifies anything. Unlike theism. Nor does it pretend
to provide morality - unlike theism which claims to and fails as
evidenced by the behaviour of Malcolm and Roger.
Because the two propositions
"There exist little men who live in burrows and can go invisible"
and
"There exists a being who is the root cause of all that is"
are only very superficially similar. One is essentially limited, the
other
is about the fundamental nature of reality. Disbelief in pixies has quite
different implications from disbelief in God.
The implication or scope of a belief doesn't alter it's validity; if
there is no objective, verifiable evidence for it, it is just an
unsupported belief.
It alters the techniques you need to use to determine whether or not the
belief is true. Claims with a wide scope or about the fundamental nature of
reality can be false, as can claims about what was for breakfast yesterday.
However you've shifted grounds. You are now presenting the "no evidence"
argument. We were discussing whether atheism is intellectually
distingusished in any meaningful sense from the claim that there are no
pixies.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
02 Oct 2006 12:49:57 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159723330.777625.240760@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
Why do Malcolm and Roger keep pretending that atheism is anything
different than not believing in pixies? It's a non-event that neither
motivates nor justifies anything. Unlike theism. Nor does it pretend
to provide morality - unlike theism which claims to and fails as
evidenced by the behaviour of Malcolm and Roger.
Because the two propositions
"There exist little men who live in burrows and can go invisible"
and
"There exists a being who is the root cause of all that is"
are only very superficially similar. One is essentially limited, the
other
is about the fundamental nature of reality. Disbelief in pixies has quite
different implications from disbelief in God.
The implication or scope of a belief doesn't alter it's validity; if
there is no objective, verifiable evidence for it, it is just an
unsupported belief.
It alters the techniques you need to use to determine whether or not the
belief is true.
No, it doesn't. Why would you think that?
Claims with a wide scope or about the fundamental nature of
reality can be false, as can claims about what was for breakfast yesterday.
Claims can be anything you want. If you claim you had cereal for
breakfast, that might be true because lots of people eat cereal for
breakfast, but I don't care anyway. If you claim pixies exist, I might
say, "yeah, that's what lots of people claim. Got any objective,
verifiable evidence?' If you claim deities exist, might say, "Yeah,
that's what lots of people claim. Got any objective, verifiable
evidence?" Neither the number of people believing in it nor the
strength of their believe makes the claim any more valid or valuable.
However you've shifted grounds. You are now presenting the "no evidence"
argument.
I've always presented the "no evidence" argument, but now I'm
addressing YOUR attempted red herring; you're trying to claim that
because some people assert that deities have something to do with
"ultimate reality" and all that crap, we should for some reason
approach that debate differently. The only difference between your two
claims I can see is that people are unlikely to go on a Holy Pixie War,
but you never know. This has been pointed out to you before, but as
far as atheists are concerned, the assertion that deities exist carries
almost EXACTLY the same weight as the assertion that pixies, or
Krishna, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist. It is YOUR
supernatural belief; not ours. Just because YOU think there's a
difference, doesn't mean we're required to.
We were discussing whether atheism is intellectually
distingusished in any meaningful sense from the claim that there are no
pixies.
It isn't. There is no legitimate evidence for deities, pixies, and a
whole list of other things that lots of people really, really want to
be true. Theists just think there's a difference.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 09:10:34 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 13:11:53 -0700, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:07:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
If you a Christian then your morality is derived fromthe teachings of
Jesus....
Judging by the "morality" of Malcolm, Pearse and the majority of
cross-posting theists, Jesus must have been the same kind of lying,
hypocritical, thoroughly nasty piece of work they are.
So that's at least a defensible position.
If you can show that atheists, as a group, are more moral than theists such
as Roger and I, ypu've got quite a strong case for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need a case.
I assert that honesty is a more positve moral postion than dishonesty
because of the many benefits honesty brings to society and personal
relationships. Compare the number of atheists who have lied to Roger
with the amount of dishonesty Roger manages to squeez into one post;
for example, his constant deletion of points he wishes to avoid
discussing, his constant unsupported assertions like atheists'
inability to discuss their belief systems, his constant sanctimonious
snide behavior towards people with whom he disagrees, his refusal to
actually answer any questions put to him. The evidece is that atheists
are more honest that Roger, and therefore more moral.
Why do Malcolm and Roger keep pretending that atheism is anything
different than not believing in pixies?
They are intellectually and psychologically incapable; THEIR
supernatural believe MUST be true because the bible says so, and since
we can't PROVE there are no deities, "God" must exist. It makes no
difference that they have exactly the same amount of actual evidence to
support it as they do for all the other supernatural beliefs they
reject.
It's a non-event that neither
motivates nor justifies anything. Unlike theism. Nor does it pretend
to provide morality - unlike theism which claims to and fails as
evidenced by the behaviour of Malcolm and Roger.
The funny thing is, as far as I can tell most atheists ARE more moral
than the average theist, at least amongst those I encounter on usenet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A-Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 12:38:45 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
If you are not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It used
to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were atheists,
so they could point to the source of their ideas. ...
Ex-squeeze me? Atheism has been around since
the dawn of man. Marxism has been around since
the dawn of Marx. Methinks you're confused.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 02:45:59 PM |
|
|
"A-Man" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:d_-dnaQkr7F7n4PYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
If you are not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were
atheists, so they could point to the source of their ideas. ...
Ex-squeeze me? Atheism has been around since
the dawn of man. Marxism has been around since
the dawn of Marx. Methinks you're confused.
Durkenheim did a survey of religious practise at the dawn of the tweniteth
century and found not a single example of an atheist society. You could
argue things changed in the intervening hundred years.
You statement isn't really true, except that, yes, we can find some Greek
philosophers or other isolated individuals who without absurdity could be
described as "atheists". When you look closely you usually find that they
did not disbeleive in quite the same way as the modern atheist.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 03:18:56 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"A-Man" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:d_-dnaQkr7F7n4PYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
If you are not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists were
atheists, so they could point to the source of their ideas. ...
Ex-squeeze me? Atheism has been around since
the dawn of man. Marxism has been around since
the dawn of Marx. Methinks you're confused.
Durkenheim did a survey of religious practise at the dawn of the tweniteth
century and found not a single example of an atheist society. You could
argue things changed in the intervening hundred years.
You statement isn't really true, except that, yes, we can find some Greek
philosophers or other isolated individuals who without absurdity could be
described as "atheists". When you look closely you usually find that they
did not disbeleive in quite the same way as the modern atheist.
How does your assertion there hasn't been an atheist society disprove
the claim that atheism "has been around since the dawn of man"? Do you
claim to know the thoughts of, say, cro-magnon people?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
30 Sep 2006 07:02:26 PM |
|
|
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159647536.349816.36910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"A-Man" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:d_-dnaQkr7F7n4PYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
If you are not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists
were
atheists, so they could point to the source of their ideas. ...
Ex-squeeze me? Atheism has been around since
the dawn of man. Marxism has been around since
the dawn of Marx. Methinks you're confused.
Durkenheim did a survey of religious practise at the dawn of the
tweniteth
century and found not a single example of an atheist society. You could
argue things changed in the intervening hundred years.
You statement isn't really true, except that, yes, we can find some Greek
philosophers or other isolated individuals who without absurdity could be
described as "atheists". When you look closely you usually find that
they
did not disbeleive in quite the same way as the modern atheist.
How does your assertion there hasn't been an atheist society disprove
the claim that atheism "has been around since the dawn of man"? Do you
claim to know the thoughts of, say, cro-magnon people?
Strictly it doesn't.
There could have been a lively Cro-magnon atheist cave-painting group.
It is unlikely. If there were no atheist societies in 1912 or thereabouts
when Durkenhein did his survey, it is most unlikely that there would have
been any in deep prehistory. Most primitive societies don't have
intellectual dissidents.
Abstract argument can only get you a certain distance. To know whether
"atheism has been around since the dawn of man" or not, you do need to read
some anthropology.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? God is impossible |
01 Oct 2006 12:19:46 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1159647536.349816.36910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Malcolm wrote:
"A-Man" <a@man.com> wrote in message
news:d_-dnaQkr7F7n4PYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Malcolm wrote:
If you are not a Chrisitian they you get your views from elsewhere. It
used to be true that most atheists were Marxists and most Marxists
were
atheists, so they could point to the source of their ideas. ...
Ex-squeeze me? Atheism has been around since
the dawn of man. Marxism has been around since
the dawn of Marx. Methinks you're confused.
Durkenheim did a survey of religious practise at the dawn of the
tweniteth
century and found not a single example of an atheist society. You could
argue things changed in the intervening hundred years.
You statement isn't really true, except that, yes, we can find some Greek
philosophers or other isolated individuals who without absurdity could be
described as "atheists". When you look closely you usually find that
they
did not disbeleive in quite the same way as the modern atheist.
How does your assertion there hasn't been an atheist society disprove
the claim that atheism "has been around since the dawn of man"? Do you
claim to know the thoughts of, say, cro-magnon people?
Strictly it doesn't.
There could have been a lively Cro-magnon atheist cave-painting group.
It is unlikely. If there were no atheist societies in 1912 or thereabouts
when Durkenhein did his survey, it is most unlikely that there would have
been any in deep prehistory. Most primitive societies don't have
intellectual dissidents.
Again you make the mistake of trying to claim that if there were no
atheist societies, one should also assume have been no atheists.
Consider the attitudes towards atheists today; there is a great deal of
motivation to keep one's lack of belief hidden.
Abstract argument can only get you a certain distance. To know whether
"atheism has been around since the dawn of man" or not, you do need to read
some anthropology.
There is no way to know what the population of atheists (as defined
today) might have been in the distant past, but there is at least some
reason to assume the number was greater than zero.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
