bob young wrote:

bob young wrote:

[...]

What claims

"Claim" singular: "All gods are made up by arrogent insecure

humans"

I have no doubt whatsoever that they are. Did i send you my 'god
list'? Let me know if you want it

Ok I'm going to go into this in some detail.
Although I make the argument that your claim-
-as you express it--is unjustified, only minor
modification of the way you express it is needed
to change that.

If you recall, I said: "I don't think you can
rationally support this claim" with "this claim"
being: "All gods are made up by arrogent insecure
humans." You replied: "Think it through with a
clear head..." but this does not address my point:
that you can't rationally support the claim. My
thoughts on the matter bear not at all on that issue.

So what is the big deal? Hear me out please.
"All gods are made up..." is another way of
saying that "no gods exist." First, notice that this
is not a lack of a belief in gods, it is a belief
(that no gods exist), which is fine as long as
you realize it and accept the consequences. Second,
notice you state this not as a belief ( as in:
"_I believe_ that "all gods are made up...") but
as a fact: ("all gods are made up..."). Thus you
make a claim. Doing so means you have the
burden of proof:

" Whoever puts forward an assertion, announces
a position, or takes a stand must be prepared to
support it with reasons and evidence. The person
who fathers a claim is the one responsible for its
defense, and the 'burden of proof' is his and his
alone.-- Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words.
1st ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.
p 299-300

There are very good reasons why the person
making a claim always has the burden of proof.
It's not dogma. It's pragmatic. But I will spare
you that dissertation unless you want it.

Are you still with me? Ok, now the problem is
that you cannot support your burden of proof
because you cannot show that no god of any
description exists anywhere in the universe. The
best you can do is to say that you've seen no
evidence that any gods exist. This lack of
information (i.e.: that you've "seen *no evidence*")
cannot support the claim. To assume that it
does is called argumentum ad ignorantiam or
the appeal to ignorance fallacy. "Ignorance"
here means only a lack of information. The
point is that _a lack of evidence_ is not, itself,
_evidence_ of the opposite conclusion, with
one exception (which doesn't apply here).

It is simple to avoid this problem. Just qualify
such statements by prefacing them with the
words "I believe" or "in my opinion," or
the like.

Another reason to avoid the "no gods exist"
assertion is that in doing so, you hand the
alt.atheism christian groupies a hammer to
pound atheists with. That claim is a mirror
image of their own claim: that "god exists."
This makes them happy because now you
make a god claim that you can't support
either--just like them. Their claim is based
on faith--which they gladly admit. Since
you make a claim you can't support then
isn't yours based on faith too, just like
them?

Notice that many believers here tacitly
acknowledge that atheism is superior to
religion when they try to equate the two.
When they say "atheism is a religion" they
obviously intend it as an insult and that
is how atheists take it. They clearly believe
they are draging atheism down to a lower
level when they do this. They are saying
"atheism is no better than what we have
(religion)." Ergo they must assume that
atheism superior to religion when they try to
drag it down. So again I urge you not to
give them the ammo that allows them to do
this: qualify opinions as such and make no
claims that you are not prepaired to support
with evidence and reason. Thanks for reading
this.

e

bob young wrote:

bob young wrote:

[...]

The

definition of Atheism is magnificent in its simplicity:
Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."

Hyperbole.

I repeat. Atheism, a bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."

Is it sane to believe that repetition this will
convey additional import to the assertion?

Absolutely,

"Absolutely"? This is a logical fallacy:

argumentum ad nauseum
The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely
to be true the more often it is heard. An
"argumentum ad nauseum" is one that employs
constant repetition in asserting a truth.

Anyone persuaded by the argumentum ad nauseum,
or any other logical fallacy, has been duped.

politicians do it all the time.

So do fundies.

s

bob young wrote:

1. "Would you say your mind is open on the subject?"

Yes since I have been on both sides of the fence, my first 22 years
being 'with god' as they say, but I never felt I was 'with' anybody
other than priests with an ax to grind.

Having been on both sides doesn't imply an open
mind. Many believers have also been on both sides.
An open mind is one willing to entertain the
possibility that ones views are wrong or incomplete;
that ones limited experience doesn't grant one ownership
of universal truths. It means that one is willing to change
his mind if certain reasonable and objective criteria are
met, painful though that might be.

2. "And yet you feel superior to those you deem arrogant. So
might they not see you as arrogant?"

Arrogance comes from making a god in our own image.

Notice that you didn't answer my question?
Is it because you would have had to answer
"yes, they might well see me as arrogant" because you
don't want to look at the issue from the other side?

Anyway, arrogance can come from an unshakable
certainty in ones own beliefs too.

With billions of

species on this planet why did a god chose to make us in his own

image.

The answer cries out in it's simplicity. To create a god like

oneself

is unquestionably arrogant.

"Unquestionably"? I take this to mean your mind is closed on
the subject, right? And yet I can think of reasons for
this that do not denote arrogance. Provincialism for
one.

Second, it wasn't mankind who wrote those words,
it was probably just one man. And this represents only
one religion. And what about all the gods that aren't like
man?

Because I try to maintain an objective viewpoint,
perhaps? Too many atheists around here seem willing
to go along with what anyone says about Christians
as long as it is negative, in my opinion.

The only positive side is the good people it attracts for the wrong
reasons.

That doesn't address what I said. I'm saying that many
around here, and perhaps you too, would not object
to almost anything said about Christians, true or not, as
long as it was negative.

The only positive side is the good people it attracts for the wrong
reasons.

In your opinion. But you are clearly biased against
Christianity, almost to the point of bigotry. Your
hostility is manifest. Maybe you feel your bad experience
justifies this. Maybe it does. But can I ask you what it is
you wish to accomplish here? Is it more than just venting?
Because if persuasion is a goal of yours you aren't likely
to persuade anyone by attacking them.

If defending atheism is a goal, I submit that your
intolerance for believers and religions might domore harm
than good. You re-inforce their stereotype of the
agenda-driven evangelical anti-christian atheist, out to debunk
any believer for their own good. I'm NOT this is what
you are , but that you could be easily framed that
way.

They are suspicious of evangelical atheists and I must
admit, so am I.

Christians are called upon by their
religion to evangelize. What excuse do atheists have?
That they know better than the poor deluded believers
and are just trying to help them? *****. If compassion
was their motive they would have an entirely different
approach. I've got no use for busybodies who think it is
their job to knock on doors telling people what they
should and should not believe.

So if we desire
to continue to make claims of rationality for atheism it
means we can't afford to indulge opurselves in the pleasure
of sticking it to them they way they try to stick it to us. We
MUST maintain highe r standards than that.

I generally thought this to be the case. It is not difficult to do,
since religions are required to substantiate a myth and Atheists need
only show how wrong they are.

This is exactly the attitude that Christians who come here
have: to show us how wrong we are. Don't you find that
attitude arrogant?

And BTW they are not required to substantiate
anything because they don't claim to be able
to (usually).

Otherwise we
are no better than they are, a n eventuality I find most

distasteful

indeed.

Well the nastiness comes from the fundamental religionists

Come on. Why don't you at least try to look at it
objectively? I find it appalling, but it is a fact, that
atheists here have been known to provoke Christians in
their own groups and to start the nastiness as well.

when they are driven onto a corner with nothing more of a cogent

nature to say, then

the insults are hurled.

This might come as a shock to you but atheists who
have made claims they can't substantiate do exactly the
same thing when cornered.

One thing I see here that is a problem is the rampant stereotyping
of Christians, very much in the style of Christians stereotyping
atheists.

how do you account for all the different sects?

What do you mean?

Another problem I see is putting words in their mouths--telling

them

what they believe instead of asking them.

Never do that,

I think this qualifies: "What you are really saying is that weak
people cannot face life without amythological eternity."

the same old stuff will be trotted out leading nowhere
IMO

It may be true to say that
doing these things will render you correct 90% of the time. However
that 10% error rate is much too high a price to pay just to allow

the

laziness of employing the above tactics, in my opinion.

The good side is, forty years ago there were no forums like this

where

religionists could be challenged

Have you read the charter for alt.atheism? This is not a forum
to challenge religionists. It has come to this only because
they invade the place.

apart from Hyde Park Corner in London

[Speakers corner] where folks debated religions. Now here on The
Internet it is worldwide and if I were a Christian I would detest the
internet as never before has mythological belief been challenged so
openly.

Have you actually persuaded anyone they were wrong?

h