| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ineedmoney" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2004 05:18:31 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
"bouttime" <bouttime27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8917e355.0403201507.35affc75@posting.google.com...
To speculate that something is possible requires only that there is no
proof that it is not. To insist that something is actual requires direct
proof of its actuality. Thus the speculative possibility of gods is a
legitimate but the actual impossibility of them is an unproven claim.
so far, if i understand you correctly, you are the only person who
understood my statement "if there was no god there would be no atheists"
correctly.
Ah good you are about to explain what you meant....
in other words if in fact there is no god, then there is nothing
for atheists to not believe in. there can only be atheists if in fact
there is a god for them not to believe in.
Oh great... this one again. I am still continually amazed that anyone can
think this line of reasoning is logical.
Consider...
Example 1: If there were no 'invisible 12 mile long fish orbiting
jupiter', there would be nothing for people to not believe that there was
'an invisible 12 mile long fish orbiting jupiter'. Therefore, the 'invisible
12 mile long fish orbiting jupiter' exists.
Example 2: If there were no Zeus, Amen Ra, Gilgamesh, El, (insert various
other gods here) there would be nothing for people to not believe in,
including Zeus, Amen Ra, Gilgamesh, El, (insert various other gods here).
Therefore every possible god ever thought up including Zeus, Amen Ra,
Gilgamesh, El, (insert various other gods here) HAS TO EXIST.
In steps it goes something like this:
1. There are disbelievers in [a possible notion]
2. For their to be disbelievers, there must be something to disbelieve in
3. Therefore, [a possible notion] has to exist, becuase there are
disbelievers.
Im sure I could have said that better, but the logic breaks down in between
point 2 and 3.
Making sence?
it is within the realm of possibility that there is a god, there is
no proof that it is impossible for there to be a god.
There no proof its impossible for other gods to not exist either. Should we
therefore believe in all of them too? Why shouldnt we disbelieve in all the
others? In fact the aliens in most sci-fi movies are quite possible, but why
dont we entertain their existance? Why do most people disbelieve in them?
In other words:
The fact something is possible, doesnt mean it is in any way probable.
there for, there is no true atheist, only agnostics.
No. Your logic is wrong.
When you find out why you disbelieve in all other gods, you'll know why
atheists dont believe in any of them.
Ed
.
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
05 Sep 2004 11:21:57 PM |
|
|
In article <chg3bt$jmk$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Ineedmoney" <mail@fake.co.uk> wrote:
"bouttime" <bouttime27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8917e355.0403201507.35affc75@posting.google.com...
To speculate that something is possible requires only that there is no
proof that it is not. To insist that something is actual requires direct
proof of its actuality. Thus the speculative possibility of gods is a
legitimate but the actual impossibility of them is an unproven claim.
so far, if i understand you correctly, you are the only person who
understood my statement "if there was no god there would be no atheists"
correctly.
Ah good you are about to explain what you meant....
in other words if in fact there is no god, then there is nothing
for atheists to not believe in. there can only be atheists if in fact
there is a god for them not to believe in.
Oh great... this one again. I am still continually amazed that anyone can
think this line of reasoning is logical.
Consider...
Example 1: If there were no 'invisible 12 mile long fish orbiting
jupiter', there would be nothing for people to not believe that there was
'an invisible 12 mile long fish orbiting jupiter'. Therefore, the 'invisible
12 mile long fish orbiting jupiter' exists.
Example 2: If there were no Zeus, Amen Ra, Gilgamesh, El, (insert various
other gods here) there would be nothing for people to not believe in,
including Zeus, Amen Ra, Gilgamesh, El, (insert various other gods here).
Therefore every possible god ever thought up including Zeus, Amen Ra,
Gilgamesh, El, (insert various other gods here) HAS TO EXIST.
In steps it goes something like this:
1. There are disbelievers in [a possible notion]
2. For their to be disbelievers, there must be something to disbelieve in
3. Therefore, [a possible notion] has to exist, becuase there are
disbelievers.
Im sure I could have said that better, but the logic breaks down in between
point 2 and 3.
Making sence?
*
No.
But makes good 'sense'.
earle
*
(Spelling Nazi)
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ineedmoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
06 Sep 2004 05:54:59 PM |
|
|
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-3C58E4.21215605092004@netnews.comcast.net...
Making sence?
*
No.
But makes good 'sense'.
earle
*
(Spelling Nazi)
You Nazi's are everywhere! :)
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
07 Sep 2004 11:41:56 AM |
|
|
In article <chipsb$17u$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Ineedmoney" <mail@fake.co.uk> wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-3C58E4.21215605092004@netnews.comcast.net...
Making sence?
*
No.
But makes good 'sense'.
earle
*
(Spelling Nazi)
You Nazi's are everywhere! :)
Ed
*
You mean "You Nazis [no apostrophe for plurals] are everywhere!"
earle
(Punctuation Nazi)
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ineedmoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
11 Sep 2004 09:32:18 AM |
|
|
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-46AD6A.09415507092004@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <chipsb$17u$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Ineedmoney" <mail@fake.co.uk> wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-3C58E4.21215605092004@netnews.comcast.net...
Making sence?
*
No.
But makes good 'sense'.
earle
*
(Spelling Nazi)
You Nazi's are everywhere! :)
Ed
*
You mean "You Nazis [no apostrophe for plurals] are everywhere!"
earle
(Punctuation Nazi)
Aha! I did that on purpose!!!
(backs away slowly, then runs away)
Ed
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Goldberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
06 Sep 2004 10:56:30 PM |
|
|
[Follow-up set to exactly one group]
Ineedmoney wrote:
"bouttime" <bouttime27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I'm piggy backing. I seem to have missed bouttime's original post.
in other words if in fact there is no god, then there is nothing
for atheists to not believe in. there can only be atheists if in fact
there is a god for them not to believe in.
Gee, I never thought of that. This is just a brilliant and compelling
piece of logic. My daughter believes in Santa Claus and unicorns. I,
on the other hand, am an a-clausist and an a-unicornist. But now you
have convinced me that Santa Clause and unicorns must exist. Otherwise,
how could I not believe in them.
Or maybe a-clausists (like me) don't exist. I'll try explaining to the
tax man that I don't exist the next time it becomes an issue.
Thank you, thank you, for your brilliant logic which has enabled me to
see that either I don't exist or unicorns do. Without your (bouttime's)
genius, I would have just continued to believe that I exists and
unicorns don't.
Or wait, maybe a resolution to the question of my existence is that I'm
a unicorn. Now do unicorns pay taxes?
-j
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
10 Sep 2004 09:56:44 PM |
|
|
bouttime wrote:
in other words if in fact there is no god, then there is nothing
for atheists to not believe in.
Don't be ridiculous, the fact that there is no 'God' is the whole basis of
atheists' belief.
there can only be atheists if in fact there is a god for them not to
believe in.
Belief or non-belief in anything does not change the status of the actual
existence of said thing, whether or not that actual existence can be proved or
not. That same thing does not require your belief to exist, nor does
non-belief negate it's existence.
Trying to equate belief to existence or non-belief to non-existence, or
vice-versa, is a pointless exercise.
Now, I am quite able to accept the existence of 'God' as a theoretical
possibility that, for me, requires proof. If/When said proof is forthcoming, I
will no longer need to 'believe' or 'disbelieve' just as I do not need to
believe in the cup I am drinking from.
P.
--
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God
who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them
to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
11 Sep 2004 06:23:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:56:44 +0900, "P." <no.one@home.now> wrote:
bouttime wrote:
in other words if in fact there is no god, then there is nothing
for atheists to not believe in.
Don't be ridiculous, the fact that there is no 'God' is the whole basis of
atheists' belief.
What "atheists' belief"?
Don't be ridiculous yourself - this is atheists ourselves, telling you
that we don't have this belief which you tell us we do.
there can only be atheists if in fact there is a god for them not to
believe in.
Which was a remarkably stupid remark.
Belief or non-belief in anything does not change the status of the actual
existence of said thing, whether or not that actual existence can be proved or
not. That same thing does not require your belief to exist, nor does
non-belief negate it's existence.
And there lies the problem: you grossly over-simplify the meaning of
the word "God", and then limit the number of positions you will allow
anybody to have about it.
"Tick the box" force-fitting people to positions they don't have
using a least-bad-fit, and then insing the the boxes describe them
accurately rather than addressing the people themselves.
The word "God" means different things inside and outside its
religions. Outside it, which is where atheists and other
non-Christians are, it's "what somebody else believes as part of their
religion".
Dumb religionists (mostly) but some dumb agnostics and even a few dumb
atheists can't grasp this simple point and imagine that the
inside-the-religion meaning, presumptions etc apply outside it as a
starting point for everybody.
Trying to equate belief to existence or non-belief to non-existence, or
vice-versa, is a pointless exercise.
Now, I am quite able to accept the existence of 'God' as a theoretical
possibility that, for me, requires proof. If/When said proof is forthcoming, I
will no longer need to 'believe' or 'disbelieve' just as I do not need to
believe in the cup I am drinking from.
Yet you won't let others see it as a belief-artifact from somebody
else's religion, not something for which the question even arises.
P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
12 Sep 2004 01:32:48 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Don't be ridiculous, the fact that there is no 'God' is the whole basis of
atheists' belief.
What "atheists' belief"?
The belief that there is no 'God' or gods or supreme, omnipotent, creator type
being or whatever. It has to be a belief surely because no conclusive proof
exists either way.
Don't be ridiculous yourself - this is atheists ourselves, telling you
that we don't have this belief which you tell us we do.
I am an atheist.
there can only be atheists if in fact there is a god for them not to
believe in.
Which was a remarkably stupid remark.
Yes, I agree. My argument was against that remark.
Belief or non-belief in anything does not change the status of the actual
existence of said thing, whether or not that actual existence can be proved or
not. That same thing does not require your belief to exist, nor does
non-belief negate it's existence.
And there lies the problem: you grossly over-simplify the meaning of
the word "God", and then limit the number of positions you will allow
anybody to have about it.
Huh? That paragraph didn't even mention 'God'. And what do you mean? Are you
talking about theism/deism or spirituality, which is another topic altogether.
Dumb religionists (mostly) but some dumb agnostics and even a few dumb
atheists can't grasp this simple point and imagine that the
inside-the-religion meaning, presumptions etc apply outside it as a
starting point for everybody.
I must confess that I did come to this thread without seeing the original post,
so if I have made presumptions then please forgive me.
Yet you won't let others see it as a belief-artifact from somebody
else's religion, not something for which the question even arises.
I will 'let' others see whatever they want (as if I have the right to do
otherwise!), but I may not believe in what they see.
P.
PS. I think the thread may have been confused, I was actually commenting against
what bouttime wrote.
--
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God
who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them
to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter H.M. Brooks" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
16 Sep 2004 01:47:29 AM |
|
|
"P." <no.one@home.now> wrote in message
news:ci0qh6$35o$1@news.hananet.net...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Don't be ridiculous, the fact that there is no 'God' is the whole basis
of
atheists' belief.
What "atheists' belief"?
The belief that there is no 'God' or gods or supreme, omnipotent, creator
type
being or whatever. It has to be a belief surely because no conclusive
proof
exists either way.
Nonsense!
Belief is 'in' something.
You can believe in telepathy, oija board readings, newspaper horoscopes,
conspiracy theories, homeopathy, magic or honest politicians.
If you don't believe in any of the above that means that you are simply
sensible - maybe slightly sceptical - but not an a-telepathist, an
a-ouija-boardist or any other such term.
So it is with theism - if you believe in gods then you are a theist by
defininition.
As somebody pointed out, if there were no theists then there would be no
need to characterise sensible people as 'atheists' any more than there is to
call sensible people 'a-ouija-boardists'.
--
Sylvia: "You must think me a stupid American *****."
Neighbour: "Not at all, I assumed that you were Canadian" - dialogue from
the film 'Sylvia'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Az_" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
16 Sep 2004 07:41:56 AM |
|
|
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <peter@new.co.za> wrote in message news:<1095317257.CdSyZXwjXyHL32CHKbq7IA@teranews>...
Nonsense!
Belief is 'in' something.
You can believe in telepathy, oija board readings, newspaper horoscopes,
conspiracy theories, homeopathy, magic or honest politicians.
If you don't believe in any of the above that means that you are simply
sensible - maybe slightly sceptical - but not an a-telepathist, an
a-ouija-boardist or any other such term.
So it is with theism - if you believe in gods then you are a theist by
defininition.
As somebody pointed out, if there were no theists then there would be no
need to characterise sensible people as 'atheists' any more than there is to
call sensible people 'a-ouija-boardists'.
Try it this way. Suppose a society of people that believed in smurfs
sprang up. They insisted there were smurfs. Those individuals that
didn't buy into their story would be asmurfists even if they didn't
take the time to investigate the claims and form arguments to refute
the claim. Simply by not believing they recieve the prefix 'a', which
of course means without. So the world divides into two camps. The
Smurfists that believe in Smurfs and the Asmurfists which do not
believe in Smurfs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
