| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Seeker" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2005 02:36:37 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:55:33 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
Then how can they claim to possess certain knowledge that God does not
exist?
They don't, at least not any that I have spoken to.
You have not spoken to the same kind of atheist I have spoken to.
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God does not exist.
Theist: Prove it.
Atheist: I can't.
Theist: Then I do not accept your claim.
Pose the question in alt.atheism and you will see.
I do not wish to play burden of proof ping pong but you have it exactly
backwards.
It goes like this:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: I can't.
Atheist: Then I do not accept your claim.
If they can't prove their claims, then they are irrelevant.
Your stringing together of high-falutin sounding verbiage is irrelevant,
it
isn't proof of your claim.
Atheists make claims that they cannot back up with rational arguments.
Atheists for the most part just live day to day in the world, their primary
claim is that they hear no concrete arguments coming from theists.
They therefore are irrelevant. I just as well listen to the rantings
of a Tibetian monk.
It's a theist who you will find chanting to an invisible god, not an
atheist.
This tactic of turning the positions inside-out, does it work on some
people?
.
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
16 Dec 2005 04:15:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:36:37 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God does not exist.
Theist: Prove it.
Atheist: I can't.
Theist: Then I do not accept your claim.
Pose the question in alt.atheism and you will see.
I do not wish to play burden of proof ping pong but you have it exactly
backwards.
It goes like this:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: I can't.
I can.
Atheist: But I do not accept your claim.
Then prove your claim that the Supreme Being does not exist.
Atheists for the most part just live day to day in the world, their primary
claim is that they hear no concrete arguments coming from theists.
That's because they are anti-religious bigots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
16 Dec 2005 04:42:01 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:36:37 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God does not exist.
Theist: Prove it.
Atheist: I can't.
Theist: Then I do not accept your claim.
Pose the question in alt.atheism and you will see.
I do not wish to play burden of proof ping pong but you have it exactly
backwards.
It goes like this:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: I can't.
I can.
What good is proof that is couched in terminology so esoteric that nobody
outside a tiny cadre that meets in the basement of some university cafeteria
can make sense of it? On the other hand, less erudite theists' claims are
also useless, being too vague and amorphous.
Atheist: But I do not accept your claim.
Then prove your claim that the Supreme Being does not exist.
I'm not making that claim, weren't you listening? My position is that
although I respect your right to believe in whatever you want, what you are
saying makes no sense to me. Why must atheists present an alternative
explanation for something we perceive that YOU invented?
Atheists for the most part just live day to day in the world, their
primary
claim is that they hear no concrete arguments coming from theists.
That's because they are anti-religious bigots.
So you've moved from shifting the burden of proof to name calling. Very
useful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 07:47:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:42:01 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
What good is proof that is couched in terminology so esoteric that nobody
outside a tiny cadre that meets in the basement of some university cafeteria
can make sense of it?
There are 10s of thousands of students studying metaphysics as we
speak.
On the other hand, less erudite theists' claims are
also useless, being too vague and amorphous.
I can't help it if you are too dull to understand metaphysics. The
issue of whether God exists is a metaphysical issue. You are not going
to find a definitive argument on The Simpsons.
Why must atheists present an alternative
explanation for something we perceive that YOU invented?
Atheists by definition are people who claim to know that God does not
exist. Let them prove it.
Actually I am an atheist in the sense that I can prove all those Gods
except the Supreme Being do not exist. The way I do it is to show how
one or another of these Gods is a contradiction.
For example, the omnipotent God of most religions does not exist.
Neother does the omnisicent God. These Gods are characterized as being
able to do anything and to know anything. But that leads to
contradictions.
So I just proved that those kinds of Gods do not exist. The only God
that exists is the Supreme Being, defined as the Being whose essence
is Esse.
That's because they are anti-religious bigots.
So you've moved from shifting the burden of proof to name calling. Very
useful.
I am being realistic about the matter. That is very useful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 08:35:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:47:10 GMT, While I was gettin a beer, somebody,
could have been (Bob), wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:42:01 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
What good is proof that is couched in terminology so esoteric that nobody
outside a tiny cadre that meets in the basement of some university cafeteria
can make sense of it?
There are 10s of thousands of students studying metaphysics as we
speak.
Where?
List the universities that teach metaphysics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 12:07:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:35:01 GMT, Nightshade
<nightshade@thedeepwoods.web> wrote:
There are 10s of thousands of students studying metaphysics as we
speak.
Where?
List the universities that teach metaphysics.
You list the ones that don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 04:17:08 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:35:01 GMT, Nightshade
<nightshade@thedeepwoods.web> wrote:
There are 10s of thousands of students studying metaphysics as we
speak.
Where?
List the universities that teach metaphysics.
You list the ones that don't.
Shifting the burden of proof again Bob? tch tch, you are becoming
predictable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 05:18:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:07:04 GMT, While I was gettin a beer, somebody,
could have been (Bob), wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:35:01 GMT, Nightshade
<nightshade@thedeepwoods.web> wrote:
There are 10s of thousands of students studying metaphysics as we
speak.
Where?
List the universities that teach metaphysics.
You list the ones that don't.
Once more, you demonstrate your inability to offer anything more than
childish, school yard, replies.
One can only conclude that you are talking through your arse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
18 Dec 2005 09:59:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:18:12 GMT, Nightshade
<nightshade@thedeepwoods.web> wrote:
List the universities that teach metaphysics.
You list the ones that don't.
Once more, you demonstrate your inability to offer anything more than
childish, school yard, replies.
What more appropriate reply to a childish school yard question is
there than a childish school yard reply. The only other response is a
non-response, and those are not very entertaining.
One can only conclude that you are talking through your arse.
Your conclusion is a childish school yard reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
16 Dec 2005 05:52:24 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:36:37 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God does not exist.
Theist: Prove it.
Atheist: I can't.
Theist: Then I do not accept your claim.
Pose the question in alt.atheism and you will see.
I do not wish to play burden of proof ping pong but you have it exactly
backwards.
It goes like this:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: I can't.
I can.
Atheist: But I do not accept your claim.
Then prove your claim that the Supreme Being does not exist.
You are claiming there is a "god." Atheists are saying "prove it."
There is no claim involved. After a few thousand years of waiting for
evidence, and none is forthcoming, I am inclined to say "I don't
believe you" when you claim there is a "god." But I (as an atheist) am
not making any claim.
Atheists for the most part just live day to day in the world, their primary
claim is that they hear no concrete arguments coming from theists.
That's because they are anti-religious bigots.
And that is the standard response to an atheist saying "I don't believe
you" when you claim there is a "god." Instead of the irrelevant ad
hominem attacks, why don't you prodice the evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 05:22:54 AM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2005 15:52:24 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bob wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:36:37 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God does not exist.
Theist: Prove it.
Atheist: I can't.
Theist: Then I do not accept your claim.
Pose the question in alt.atheism and you will see.
I do not wish to play burden of proof ping pong but you have it exactly
backwards.
It goes like this:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: I can't.
I can.
Atheist: But I do not accept your claim.
Then prove your claim that the Supreme Being does not exist.
You are claiming there is a "god." Atheists are saying "prove it."
There is no claim involved. After a few thousand years of waiting for
evidence, and none is forthcoming, I am inclined to say "I don't
believe you" when you claim there is a "god." But I (as an atheist) am
not making any claim.
Atheists for the most part just live day to day in the world, their primary
claim is that they hear no concrete arguments coming from theists.
That's because they are anti-religious bigots.
And that is the standard response to an atheist saying "I don't believe
you" when you claim there is a "god." Instead of the irrelevant ad
hominem attacks, why don't you prodice the evidence?
Gosh, that is a hard one! It is almost as if it didn't exist.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 08:19:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:22:54 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: I can't.
I can.
Atheist: But I do not accept your claim.
Then prove your claim that the Supreme Being does not exist.
You are claiming there is a "god." Atheists are saying "prove it."
There is no claim involved. After a few thousand years of waiting for
evidence, and none is forthcoming, I am inclined to say "I don't
believe you" when you claim there is a "god." But I (as an atheist) am
not making any claim.
Atheists for the most part just live day to day in the world, their primary
claim is that they hear no concrete arguments coming from theists.
That's because they are anti-religious bigots.
And that is the standard response to an atheist saying "I don't believe
you" when you claim there is a "god." Instead of the irrelevant ad
hominem attacks, why don't you prodice the evidence?
Gosh, that is a hard one! It is almost as if it didn't exist.
It's all they've got.
But what I don't understand is why they imagine they shouldn't be
called liars for this kind or lie.
Or why they lie again when they pretend this is "name-calling", "all
we do is accuse people who disagree with us of lying".
When somebody calls me an anti-religious bigot I call them the liar
they have shown to be. And the whining hypocrites resort to more.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
16 Dec 2005 04:23:32 PM |
|
|
In <43a33bff.539629546@news-server.houston.rr.com>, (Bob)
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:36:37 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God does not exist.
Theist: Prove it.
Atheist: I can't.
Theist: Then I do not accept your claim.
Pose the question in alt.atheism and you will see.
I do not wish to play burden of proof ping pong but you have it exactly
backwards.
It goes like this:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: I can't.
I can.
Atheist: But I do not accept your claim.
Then prove your claim that the Supreme Being does not exist.
Oh here we go again with yet another twit who thinks he can define what we
think.
Atheists for the most part just live day to day in the world, their
primary claim is that they hear no concrete arguments coming from
theists.
That's because they are anti-religious bigots.
Whatever.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We need everything you've got"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2726554C
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
16 Dec 2005 04:37:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:23:32 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <43a33bff.539629546@news-server.houston.rr.com>, (Bob)
wrote:
Atheist: But I do not accept your claim.
Then prove your claim that the Supreme Being does not exist.
Oh here we go again with yet another twit who thinks he can define what we
think.
Right below where you told him, as well.
Does he honestly have a problem reading for comprehension?
Atheists for the most part just live day to day in the world, their
primary claim is that they hear no concrete arguments coming from
theists.
That's because they are anti-religious bigots.
Whatever.
If we treat them as the liars or idiots they show themselves to be,
they get mortally offended.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 07:37:43 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:23:32 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
Then prove your claim that the Supreme Being does not exist.
Oh here we go again with yet another twit who thinks he can define what we
think.
Oh here we go again with yet another atheist twit who thinks he can
think.
You are irrelevant unless you can prove your claims on a rational
basis. I can prove my claims, but you cannot prove your claims.
You can't even describe the God you claim does not exist. Like all
bigots, you tar everything you are prejudiced against with a broad
brush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 02:23:51 PM |
|
|
In <43a41408.594935281@news-server.houston.rr.com>, (Bob)
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:23:32 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
Then prove your claim that the Supreme Being does not exist.
Oh here we go again with yet another twit who thinks he can define what
we think.
Oh here we go again with yet another atheist twit who thinks he can think.
You are irrelevant unless you can prove your claims on a rational basis. I
can prove my claims, but you cannot prove your claims.
You can't even describe the God you claim does not exist. Like all bigots,
you tar everything you are prejudiced against with a broad brush.
Oh grow up.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We need everything you've got"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2726554C
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
18 Dec 2005 09:47:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:23:51 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
You can't even describe the God you claim does not exist. Like all bigots,
you tar everything you are prejudiced against with a broad brush.
Oh grow up.
You grow up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 08:22:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:37:43 GMT, While I was gettin a beer, somebody,
could have been (Bob), wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:23:32 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
You are irrelevant unless you can prove your claims on a rational
basis. I can prove my claims, but you cannot prove your claims.
As a demand to prove a negative, is a logical fallacy, and hence,
dishonest, and you cannot support your assertion that ALL atheists
claim there are no gods; Why don't you offer the evidence for whatever
claim it is that you think you can prove?
Now wait for the insults and evasions.
You can't even describe the God you claim does not exist.
You describe the god, and we do not believe in it.
BTW, you are beginning to sound like a Pastor Frank, sock.
Like all
bigots, you tar everything you are prejudiced against with a broad
brush.
You sound like someone who knows something about bigotry, but tell us:
How is a lack of belief, or even a belief of lack, based on the
evidence, bigotry?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
17 Dec 2005 12:05:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:22:39 GMT, Nightshade
<nightshade@thedeepwoods.web> wrote:
You are irrelevant unless you can prove your claims on a rational
basis. I can prove my claims, but you cannot prove your claims.
As a demand to prove a negative, is a logical fallacy
Nonsense. Scientists prove negatives all the time. You have to define
what you are denying, and that's where atheists run into problems
because they try to deny the existence of something they can't define.
You can't even describe the God you claim does not exist.
You describe the god, and we do not believe in it.
See what I mean. Atheists are anti-theistic bigots.
BTW, you are beginning to sound like a Pastor Frank, sock.
LOL.
How is a lack of belief, or even a belief of lack, based on the
evidence, bigotry?
Because you deny the existence of anything that is named "God" without
investigating what that entity is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
18 Dec 2005 08:23:24 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:22:39 GMT, Nightshade
<nightshade@thedeepwoods.web> wrote:
You are irrelevant unless you can prove your claims on a rational
basis. I can prove my claims, but you cannot prove your claims.
As a demand to prove a negative, is a logical fallacy
Nonsense. Scientists prove negatives all the time. You have to define
what you are denying, and that's where atheists run into problems
because they try to deny the existence of something they can't define.
How is it possible to *believe* in something one cannot define?
You can't even describe the God you claim does not exist.
You describe the god, and we do not believe in it.
See what I mean. Atheists are anti-theistic bigots.
BTW, you are beginning to sound like a Pastor Frank, sock.
LOL.
How is a lack of belief, or even a belief of lack, based on the
evidence, bigotry?
Because you deny the existence of anything that is named "God" without
investigating what that entity is.
How does one investigate something which leaves no evidence?
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
19 Dec 2005 09:02:20 AM |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2005 18:23:24 -0800, "William T. Goat"
<ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote:
Nonsense. Scientists prove negatives all the time. You have to define
what you are denying, and that's where atheists run into problems
because they try to deny the existence of something they can't define.
How is it possible to *believe* in something one cannot define?
How can atheists know that God does not exist when they can't define
what God is?
Beats me.
How does one investigate something which leaves no evidence?
The Universe is all the evidence you need to prove the existence of
the Supreme Being. But in order to do it you have to adopt the
Worldview of Existential Realism, which is used by physicists to be
productive.
My thesis advisor told me the story of a bright Ph.D. physicist who
decided that after he graduated he would dedicate his life to proving
that you can be productive if all you do is manipulate the existing
mathematical models of physics. He failed miserably.
You need data from the real objective world to do productive physics
and that means you must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism.
Idealism will work for pure mathematics but not for physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
19 Dec 2005 04:31:48 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 18 Dec 2005 18:23:24 -0800, "William T. Goat"
<ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote:
Nonsense. Scientists prove negatives all the time. You have to define
what you are denying, and that's where atheists run into problems
because they try to deny the existence of something they can't define.
How is it possible to *believe* in something one cannot define?
How can atheists know that God does not exist when they can't define
what God is?
Since when is atheism defined as "knowing there is no God"? Atheists do
not BELIEVE in God. Do you understand the difference between KNOW and
BELIEVE? Are you trying to redefine atheism into an easier target for
attack?
How does one investigate something which leaves no evidence?
The Universe is all the evidence you need to prove the existence of
the Supreme Being.
Yet the Universe tells us nothing *about* the Supreme Being; it leaves
the Supreme Being *undefined*. The Universe does not tell us the
Supreme Being's name or gender, Its likes or dislikes, whether It is
good or evil or indifferent, or whether or not It wants something from
us and what that something might be. Believing in such a Supreme Being
is basically deism, or what I like to call "atheism with a god in it".
It's pointless.
Which leads us once again to my first question: How can one believe in
a thing undefined? What exactly are you believing in, when you believe
in God? Details, man; God is in the details.
But in order to do it you have to adopt the
Worldview of Existential Realism, which is used by physicists to be
productive.
My thesis advisor told me the story of a bright Ph.D. physicist who
decided that after he graduated he would dedicate his life to proving
that you can be productive if all you do is manipulate the existing
mathematical models of physics. He failed miserably.
You need data from the real objective world to do productive physics
and that means you must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism.
Idealism will work for pure mathematics but not for physics.
Again, don't just prove God, but the details. If you think you can use
physics to prove Christian claims about who gets to go to Heaven and
who gets to go to Hell, then please by all means do so.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
20 Dec 2005 08:31:50 AM |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2005 14:31:48 -0800, "William T. Goat"
<ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote:
Since when is atheism defined as "knowing there is no God"? Atheists do
not BELIEVE in God. Do you understand the difference between KNOW and
BELIEVE? Are you trying to redefine atheism into an easier target for
attack?
Let's take a look at the conventional definitions for "atheism".
+++
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism
atheism: the doctrine that there is no deity
+++
A doctrine requires rational support or it is not accepted. That means
that the atheist must have a good reason to accept the doctrine. That
means the atheist must KNOW that the doctrine is true. If an atheist
is a mere "believer" as you state, then why do atheists make claims
that they KNOW there is no diety?
Here's more:
+++
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the
existence of gods. This definition includes as atheists both those who
assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about
whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only
qualify those who actively disbelieve as atheists, labeling the others
as nontheists or agnostics.
Although atheists often share common concerns regarding evidence and
the scientific method of investigation and a large number are
skeptics, there is no single ideology that all atheists share.
Additionally, there are atheists who are religious or spiritual,
though many of these would not describe themselves as atheists.
+++
I recommend that you read the entire article because it is you who
does not understand the the difference between KNOW and
BELIEVE. Furthermore it is you who is trying to redefine atheism, not
me.
Yet the Universe tells us nothing *about* the Supreme Being; it leaves
the Supreme Being *undefined*.
The existence of the Universe tells us that the Supreme Being must
exist. The Supreme Being is defined as that entity whose essence is
Esse. I know I have said that so many times I have lost count.
Either pay attention or you are going to have to sit at the kiddies'
table.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
20 Dec 2005 08:20:54 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 14:31:48 -0800, "William T. Goat"
<ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote:
Since when is atheism defined as "knowing there is no God"? Atheists do
not BELIEVE in God. Do you understand the difference between KNOW and
BELIEVE? Are you trying to redefine atheism into an easier target for
attack?
Let's take a look at the conventional definitions for "atheism".
+++
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism
atheism: the doctrine that there is no deity
+++
A doctrine requires rational support or it is not accepted. That means
that the atheist must have a good reason to accept the doctrine. That
means the atheist must KNOW that the doctrine is true. If an atheist
is a mere "believer" as you state, then why do atheists make claims
that they KNOW there is no diety?
Perhaps you should ask the ones who make such a claim.
Here's more:
+++
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the
existence of gods. This definition includes as atheists both those who
assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about
whether gods exist or not.
<snip>
Well, there you go. Atheists do not *necessarily* claim to know there
is no deity. You were wrong.
<snip libel>
Yet the Universe tells us nothing *about* the Supreme Being; it leaves
the Supreme Being *undefined*.
The existence of the Universe tells us that the Supreme Being must
exist. The Supreme Being is defined as that entity whose essence is
Esse.
The Supreme Being is defined that way, by whom? Is it a traditional
definition? It's certainly not Merriam-Webster's definition. And, I
notice that this definition says nothing about consciousness or
personhood or will, characteristics usually ascribed to deities. Heck,
this Supreme Being doesn't sound anything like a deity. So, still no
reason to believe in a deity.
I know I have said that so many times I have lost count.
Not to me, you haven't. Newsflash: there's over 6 billion people on
this planet, and more being born every day. There will always be people
who haven't heard what you have to say. Shocking, isn't it?
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
20 Dec 2005 09:33:22 AM |
|
|
In <43a81340.239880203@news-server.houston.rr.com>, (Bob)
wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 14:31:48 -0800, "William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Since when is atheism defined as "knowing there is no God"? Atheists do
not BELIEVE in God. Do you understand the difference between KNOW and
BELIEVE? Are you trying to redefine atheism into an easier target for
attack?
Let's take a look at the conventional definitions for "atheism".
+++
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism
atheism: the doctrine that there is no deity +++
Webster's? You're quoting that trash?
A doctrine requires rational support or it is not accepted. That means
that the atheist must have a good reason to accept the doctrine. That
means the atheist must KNOW that the doctrine is true. If an atheist is a
mere "believer" as you state, then why do atheists make claims that they
KNOW there is no diety?
Some atheists assert they know there are no gods of particular kinds. It's
sometimes referred to as "strong atheism" (a term I don' find useful). But
that some atheists have opinions doesn't mean their opinions are atheism.
Some atheists don't like chocolate. That doesn't mean atheism is against
chocolate.
Here's more:
+++
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence
of gods. This definition includes as atheists both those who assert that
there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist
or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who
actively disbelieve as atheists, labeling the others as nontheists or
agnostics.
Although atheists often share common concerns regarding evidence and the
scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics,
there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Additionally, there
are atheists who are religious or spiritual, though many of these would
not describe themselves as atheists. +++
I recommend that you read the entire article because it is you who does
not understand the the difference between KNOW and BELIEVE. Furthermore
it is you who is trying to redefine atheism, not me.
I recommend you reread what you just posted.
"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the
existence of gods."
Same thing we here in a.a. will tell you and have told you.
Yet the Universe tells us nothing *about* the Supreme Being; it leaves
the Supreme Being *undefined*.
The existence of the Universe tells us that the Supreme Being must
exist.
No, it does not. You have not shown any reason one follows the other.
The Supreme Being is defined as that entity whose essence is
Esse. I know I have said that so many times I have lost count.
Either pay attention or you are going to have to sit at the kiddies'
table.
Aren't the arrogant *****?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We need everything you've got"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2726554C
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
20 Dec 2005 11:19:32 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
In (Bob)
wrote:
The Supreme Being is defined as that entity whose essence is
Esse. I know I have said that so many times I have lost count.
Either pay attention or you are going to have to sit at the kiddies'
table.
Aren't [you] the arrogant *****?
For Bob that's charming.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
19 Dec 2005 12:20:03 PM |
|
|
In <43a6ca44.155659125@news-server.houston.rr.com>, (Bob)
wrote:
On 18 Dec 2005 18:23:24 -0800, "William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Nonsense. Scientists prove negatives all the time. You have to define
what you are denying, and that's where atheists run into problems
because they try to deny the existence of something they can't define.
How is it possible to *believe* in something one cannot define?
How can atheists know that God does not exist when they can't define what
God is?
Dimwit, pay attention. Atheists *lack belief in any deities. And that's at
least in part because *theists can't define the string "god" with any
rigor...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We need everything you've got"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2726554C
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
19 Dec 2005 06:59:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:20:03 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
How can atheists know that God does not exist when they can't define what
God is?
Dimwit, pay attention. Atheists *lack belief in any deities. And that's at
least in part because *theists can't define the string "god" with any
rigor...
That's because you are too dull to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
19 Dec 2005 08:09:42 PM |
|
|
In <43a75756.191773062@news-server.houston.rr.com>, (Bob)
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:20:03 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
How can atheists know that God does not exist when they can't define
what God is?
Dimwit, pay attention. Atheists *lack belief in any deities. And that's
at least in part because *theists can't define the string "god" with any
rigor...
That's because you are too dull to understand.
Meaning you can't define it either.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We need everything you've got"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2726554C
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
20 Dec 2005 09:02:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:09:42 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
How can atheists know that God does not exist when they can't define
what God is?
Dimwit, pay attention. Atheists *lack belief in any deities. And that's
at least in part because *theists can't define the string "god" with any
rigor...
That's because you are too dull to understand.
Meaning you can't define it either.
Check out an earlier post where I give several definitions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? |
20 Dec 2005 09:42:54 AM |
|
|
In <43a81cce.242325890@news-server.houston.rr.com>, (Bob)
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:09:42 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
How can atheists know that God does not exist when they can't define
what God is?
Dimwit, pay attention. Atheists *lack belief in any deities. And that's
at least in part because *theists can't define the string "god" with
any rigor...
That's because you are too dull to understand.
Meaning you can't define it either.
Check out an earlier post where I give several definitions.
I've seen tons of your posts. I'm underwhelmed.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We need everything you've got"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2726554C
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
