| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ian Chesterton" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2005 09:03:49 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
Pastor Keczup wrote:
Ian Chesterton wrote:
<snip everything that is a bare faced lie>
Oh look! nothing left!
Oh look! Another atheist reacts to the truth!
--
Your beauty drains me, those tears cut me like a knife,
But please don't stop because of the pain I feel;
Everything about you would be ruined if you became my immortal wife,
No not you, but through you I may at last be able to heal.
.
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
19 Aug 2005 10:55:42 PM |
|
|
Ian Chesterton wrote:
Pastor Keczup wrote:
Ian Chesterton wrote:
<snip everything that is a bare faced lie>
Oh look! nothing left!
Oh look! Another atheist reacts to the truth!
Exactly. :-)
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Chesterton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
20 Aug 2005 12:31:32 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Ian Chesterton wrote:
Pastor Keczup wrote:
Ian Chesterton wrote:
<snip everything that is a bare faced lie>
Oh look! nothing left!
Oh look! Another atheist reacts to the truth!
Exactly. :-)
:p
--
Your beauty drains me, those tears cut me like a knife,
But please don't stop because of the pain I feel;
Everything about you would be ruined if you became my immortal wife,
No not you, but through you I may at last be able to heal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
19 Aug 2005 11:42:04 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 02:03:49 GMT, Ian Chesterton
<ichesterton@spfd.com> let us all know that:
Oh look---Ian still hasn't proven that the supernatural
exists.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
20 Aug 2005 02:56:03 AM |
|
|
Now, I might have treated you seriously up to this point, but you've
revealed yourself as just another religious bigot.
Try to understand. We have heard these arguements all before and even
if we hadn't run up against them ourselves, we'd already have heard
them from other people like you; there's nothing here to faze us.
None of us have access to all the answers - it's part of the human
condition - so no religious position is entirely sound, but agnostic
atheism is the one with fewest problems. That is because it makes the
fewest assumptions and adopting the naturalistic stance gives you
fruitful a basis for research. Look at how successful science has been
and all it has done is concentrate on explanations which don't require
unseen causes.
It is tiresome to have people like you continually pushing your ideas
on to us, as if we haven't got brains enough to figure it out for
ourselves and then when we don't react the way you hoped, whine about
how unreasonable we are. You're not talking at a bunch of
unsophisticated fools who lack education.
By all means come here to discuss your ideas, but if you're not an
atheist, remember this group isn't here for you and act as the guest
you are. You'll find plenty of people will to join you in discussion
once you behave appropriately.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Chesterton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
20 Aug 2005 03:02:17 AM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Now, I might have treated you seriously up to this point, but you've
revealed yourself as just another religious bigot.
Try to understand. We have heard these arguements all before and even
if we hadn't run up against them ourselves, we'd already have heard
them from other people like you; there's nothing here to faze us.
None of us have access to all the answers - it's part of the human
condition - so no religious position is entirely sound, but agnostic
atheism is the one with fewest problems. That is because it makes the
fewest assumptions and adopting the naturalistic stance gives you
fruitful a basis for research. Look at how successful science has been
and all it has done is concentrate on explanations which don't require
unseen causes.
It is tiresome to have people like you continually pushing your ideas
on to us, as if we haven't got brains enough to figure it out for
ourselves and then when we don't react the way you hoped, whine about
how unreasonable we are. You're not talking at a bunch of
unsophisticated fools who lack education.
By all means come here to discuss your ideas, but if you're not an
atheist, remember this group isn't here for you and act as the guest
you are. You'll find plenty of people will to join you in discussion
once you behave appropriately.
(-: Ian :-)
Are you talking to me? It looks like you were replying to Kezcup. If
you were replying to me, where was I behaving inappriately?
--
Your beauty drains me, those tears cut me like a knife,
But please don't stop because of the pain I feel;
Everything about you would be ruined if you became my immortal wife,
No not you, but through you I may at last be able to heal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Keczup" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
20 Aug 2005 03:45:18 AM |
|
|
Ian Chesterton wrote:
Are you talking to me? It looks like you were replying to Kezcup. If
you were replying to me, where was I behaving inappriately?
You were posting a screed of slanderous nonsense, misrepresenting
science, atheists and even religion. You need to go away and learn some
facts. If you do not immediately stop posting here, it can only be
assumed you are nothing but a troll.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
20 Aug 2005 05:12:14 AM |
|
|
Ian Chesterton wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Now, I might have treated you seriously up to this point, but you've
revealed yourself as just another religious bigot.
Try to understand. We have heard these arguements all before and even
if we hadn't run up against them ourselves, we'd already have heard
them from other people like you; there's nothing here to faze us.
None of us have access to all the answers - it's part of the human
condition - so no religious position is entirely sound, but agnostic
atheism is the one with fewest problems. That is because it makes the
fewest assumptions and adopting the naturalistic stance gives you
fruitful a basis for research. Look at how successful science has been
and all it has done is concentrate on explanations which don't require
unseen causes.
It is tiresome to have people like you continually pushing your ideas
on to us, as if we haven't got brains enough to figure it out for
ourselves and then when we don't react the way you hoped, whine about
how unreasonable we are. You're not talking at a bunch of
unsophisticated fools who lack education.
By all means come here to discuss your ideas, but if you're not an
atheist, remember this group isn't here for you and act as the guest
you are. You'll find plenty of people will to join you in discussion
once you behave appropriately.
(-: Ian :-)
Are you talking to me? It looks like you were replying to Kezcup. If
you were replying to me, where was I behaving inappriately?
Yes, I was addressing you.
Read my post again in the light of your preceeding response and it
should become clear to you. Not all atheists act that way and saying
that it is typical is just wrong. It may be that your posts illicit
this response, but that may have more to do with you than us.
Like most theists, you try to shift the burden of proof when the rules
of logic are quite clear and apply equally to all fields of
investigation. Logic dictates that in order to avoid error, you have to
go into any investigation without preconceived ideas, which in the
question of the existence of gods adds upto weak atheism. We are not
willing to make an exception in this instance. I am not formulating the
rules of logic, I am applying them; study logic and you will see I am
right.
Over the years, I have read much philosophy and science, and have
learned how to formulate and critique arguements effectively. You
theists continually post arguements which do not stand even cursory
examination and then whine that your ideas do not gain acceptance;
claiming that we're unreasonable and doctrinaire.
Time and again, the failure of your arguements have been explained; in
fact David Hume did it in 1779, but you continue to peddle tedious,
outmoded arguements.
And you wonder why you're not welcomed with open arms.
We are not your enemy Ian, but we will not welcome you if you try to
represent us as unreasonable when we know far more about reason than
you probably ever will.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
20 Aug 2005 04:31:06 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Now, I might have treated you seriously up to this point, but you've
revealed yourself as just another religious bigot.
Try to understand. We have heard these arguements all before and even
if we hadn't run up against them ourselves, we'd already have heard
them from other people like you; there's nothing here to faze us.
None of us have access to all the answers -
You seem to have though you had them. The problem is,
god as concieved by many as a class cannot exist.
That dooms any claims that hang off that concept of god.
Some of us - do have answers.
We have heard the creationist nonsense again and again
and the god nonsense.
Its just wrong, false, unsophisticated, based of propping
up a goofy tale tale written by bronze age billy goat herders.
Away with it. We want reality.
The hybrid god of bible, Greek philosophers simply crashes
to the ground when examined. Science pushes on and learns
much and needs no gods.
Religion over 4000 years has a perfect record when giving opinions
on the nature of the natural world arounds.
Wrong, always and ever wrong about everything.
The earth is not flat, the universe does not revolve around earth,
magic does not work, Christians do not work bigger miracles that
Jesus as per Jesus's promise in John 14;12-4.
Ilnesses are not caused by demons, Jesus's prophecy he'd
preside over the end of the earth and judgment day itself
1930 years ago was wrong and the new testament is nonsense.
Its time to admit it and get on with reality and drop all old myths.
it's part of the human
condition - so no religious position is entirely sound, but agnostic
atheism is the one with fewest problems. That is because it makes the
fewest assumptions and adopting the naturalistic stance gives you
fruitful a basis for research. Look at how successful science has been
and all it has done is concentrate on explanations which don't require
unseen causes.
It is tiresome to have people like you continually pushing your ideas
on to us, as if we haven't got brains enough to figure it out for
ourselves and then when we don't react the way you hoped, whine about
how unreasonable we are. You're not talking at a bunch of
unsophisticated fools who lack education.
By all means come here to discuss your ideas, but if you're not an
atheist, remember this group isn't here for you and act as the guest
you are. You'll find plenty of people will to join you in discussion
once you behave appropriately.
(-: Ian :-)
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
22 Aug 2005 04:05:07 AM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Now, I might have treated you seriously up to this point, but you've
revealed yourself as just another religious bigot.
Try to understand. We have heard these arguements all before and even
if we hadn't run up against them ourselves, we'd already have heard
them from other people like you; there's nothing here to faze us.
None of us have access to all the answers -
You seem to have though you had them.
Well I have examined the issue as far as I think philosophy can take me
and I do think there is room for doubt. I don't deny this, because this
is exactly the error fundies are making.
The problem is,
god as concieved by many as a class cannot exist.
That dooms any claims that hang off that concept of god.
Some of us - do have answers.
I agree in terms of the old man with the beard, the personal god does
seem to be an untenable position - and actually always has been; but as
a proportion of the whole, very few christians actually believe in Him.
Thier god is more mysterious and consequetially harder to examine.
We have heard the creationist nonsense again and again
and the god nonsense.
Its just wrong, false, unsophisticated, based of propping
up a goofy tale tale written by bronze age billy goat herders.
Away with it. We want reality.
Again I agree, that's how I feel, but the question arises whether I can
expect everybody to take the same view. There comes a point when I
discuss this with theists, when they rather hopelessly insist that
there has to be 'some sort of organising principle' , which is god.
Perhaps I lack the killer instinct, but I can't actually begrudge them
this.
The hybrid god of bible, Greek philosophers simply crashes
to the ground when examined. Science pushes on and learns
much and needs no gods.
Religion over 4000 years has a perfect record when giving opinions
on the nature of the natural world arounds.
Wrong, always and ever wrong about everything.
The earth is not flat, the universe does not revolve around earth,
magic does not work, Christians do not work bigger miracles that
Jesus as per Jesus's promise in John 14;12-4.
Ilnesses are not caused by demons, Jesus's prophecy he'd
preside over the end of the earth and judgment day itself
1930 years ago was wrong and the new testament is nonsense.
Its time to admit it and get on with reality and drop all old myths.
I really do agree, but also feel that a person has to be ready to take
that step for themselves. It's no small thing to abandon what you have
been told is the foundation of morality etc...
You see, christians are continually redefining their concept of god;
for instance, note the emergence of the god who is outside time, which
you wouldn't have heard afew years ago. This makes it pretty futile to
try to prove gods don't exist.
Abscence of evidence is enough to work with.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
22 Aug 2005 08:58:49 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Again I agree, that's how I feel, but the question arises whether I can
expect everybody to take the same view. There comes a point when I
discuss this with theists, when they rather hopelessly insist that
there has to be 'some sort of organising principle' , which is god.
Perhaps I lack the killer instinct, but I can't actually begrudge them
this.
There is a point you get to in conversations about religion where the next
sentence goes something like, "but doesn't that seem a bit silly to you
too"? There is just no way to say this in a way that is polite. I usually
just avoid saying anything.
I went through a little phase over the last year where I was considering the
existence of a biblical God. I'm not sure I really understand why this
became important to me. I read a few books on the subject and started to
really feel like I was being a bit silly, but I decided that I didn't have
to adopt all the features of the standard Christian god, I could pick and
choose. Then I started reading the Old Testament. This was supposed to be
the basis for the Biblical God. While reading this I realized that the
belief in any God is simply silly. I also realized that pretending that a
God might exist is equally silly. It is like pretending that Santa Claus
might exist.
The problem with all this? There was a woman I worked with that has spent
her entire adult life devoted to the church. I had spoken with her on a
number of occasions about religion, but now I've really come to terms with
my own atheism. What do I say to her now? "I've examined your religion
and it is truly silly".
I don't know how to go about these conversations. I have to work with
religious people. You can't simply tell them that their God doesn't exist.
You will end up being some kind of pariah at the office. It is OK to not
like atheists for their religious views. I really do wish I had a better
way to handle this.
I really do agree, but also feel that a person has to be ready to take
that step for themselves. It's no small thing to abandon what you have
been told is the foundation of morality etc...
And to be realistic most won't. You will still have to share the world with
them.
- --
Ken
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDCdo23naBnF2rJNURAnJBAKCdVwcJDHIdTFfTf+upFEKJxprJ6QCfcEGe
F2gwh2sMl0YLzK5W/K8CcIQ=
=YwU3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
22 Aug 2005 10:49:39 AM |
|
|
Ken wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Again I agree, that's how I feel, but the question arises whether I can
expect everybody to take the same view. There comes a point when I
discuss this with theists, when they rather hopelessly insist that
there has to be 'some sort of organising principle' , which is god.
Perhaps I lack the killer instinct, but I can't actually begrudge them
this.
There is a point you get to in conversations about religion where the next
sentence goes something like, "but doesn't that seem a bit silly to you
too"? There is just no way to say this in a way that is polite. I
usually just avoid saying anything.
I went through a little phase over the last year where I was considering
the
existence of a biblical God. I'm not sure I really understand why this
became important to me. I read a few books on the subject and started to
really feel like I was being a bit silly, but I decided that I didn't have
to adopt all the features of the standard Christian god, I could pick and
choose. Then I started reading the Old Testament. This was supposed to
be
the basis for the Biblical God. While reading this I realized that the
belief in any God is simply silly. I also realized that pretending that a
God might exist is equally silly. It is like pretending that Santa Claus
might exist.
The problem with all this? There was a woman I worked with that has spent
her entire adult life devoted to the church. I had spoken with her on a
number of occasions about religion, but now I've really come to terms with
my own atheism. What do I say to her now? "I've examined your religion
and it is truly silly".
I don't know how to go about these conversations. I have to work with
religious people. You can't simply tell them that their God doesn't
exist.
You will end up being some kind of pariah at the office. It is OK to not
like atheists for their religious views. I really do wish I had a better
way to handle this.
It is hard.
The first known Atheists, Diagoras of Melos had the same
sort of realization. he had lost some valuabel books and started
a sacrifice to the gods for their return. Halfway through that, he
realized, it would not returns his books. And was silly.
Which is what happens to many thoughtful people. You get to
that point.
Diagoras wrote a book on Atheism, and was for his troubles,
condemned and had to flee Athens. An inscription has been
found there offering one mina of silver for the capture of
Diagoras, dead or alive.
His book was burnt.
The "other side" has long had a simple way to handle this.
From the time of Diagoras (500 BCE to the time the death
penalty for atheism was abolished in England in the very late
1700's was thus 2200 years.
I really do agree, but also feel that a person has to be ready to take
that step for themselves. It's no small thing to abandon what you have
been told is the foundation of morality etc...
And to be realistic most won't. You will still have to share the world
with them.
It took 2200 years just to get them to stop killing us.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
22 Aug 2005 10:40:38 AM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
WCB wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Now, I might have treated you seriously up to this point, but you've
revealed yourself as just another religious bigot.
Try to understand. We have heard these arguements all before and even
if we hadn't run up against them ourselves, we'd already have heard
them from other people like you; there's nothing here to faze us.
None of us have access to all the answers -
You seem to have though you had them.
Well I have examined the issue as far as I think philosophy can take me
and I do think there is room for doubt. I don't deny this, because this
is exactly the error fundies are making.
The problem is,
god as concieved by many as a class cannot exist.
That dooms any claims that hang off that concept of god.
Some of us - do have answers.
I agree in terms of the old man with the beard, the personal god does
seem to be an untenable position - and actually always has been; but as
a proportion of the whole, very few christians actually believe in Him.
Thier god is more mysterious and consequetially harder to examine.
Its teh same old hairy thunderer witha beard. If you critique that, they
twoist and dodge, but it is stil the same old thing.
They start trying to play the old negative theology game, but
its still the same old thing.
That is why I simplified it to a class of gods.
Cuts the dodging down.
The only way they can dodge that is to deny basic
claims all together.
God created all. God is omnipotent.
Omniscience is derived from omnipotence.
God is omnibenevolent.
God created all.
These are the four key claims.
Really three as omniscience is derived.
Not much else matters.
The dodging usually takes place at lower incidental
and secondary claimed attributes.
Part of the dodge is to say we know so little about god we
can say nothing about him.
Fine, christian, then shut up.
What they mean is you shut up and I will talk, and
talk, and talk.
What you claim is what you get.
What they claim doesn't work,
simplified to its extreme basics
which leaves no wriggle room.
They either have to make these basic
claims or shut up.
The basics self destruct.
We have heard the creationist nonsense again and again
and the god nonsense.
Its just wrong, false, unsophisticated, based of propping
up a goofy tale tale written by bronze age billy goat herders.
Away with it. We want reality.
Again I agree, that's how I feel, but the question arises whether I can
expect everybody to take the same view. There comes a point when I
discuss this with theists, when they rather hopelessly insist that
there has to be 'some sort of organising principle' , which is god.
As I show, it all collapses when the very, basic, core
claism are examned and all else is abandoned as irrelevant.
All else that hangs off those basics go down wit hthe
basic core claims.
This is the best you can do. The problem there is you cannot
make a fantatists be rational.
But I can show rationally that what they think is and must
be false. But its a start. I do see that few people argue this
for long, usually they subvert reason, abandon facts and call
it victory and bug out quickly.
On the net long ago, I found when people stop arguing with
you, you have found a good argument.
Perhaps I lack the killer instinct, but I can't actually begrudge them
this.
The hybrid god of bible, Greek philosophers simply crashes
to the ground when examined. Science pushes on and learns
much and needs no gods.
Religion over 4000 years has a perfect record when giving opinions
on the nature of the natural world arounds.
Wrong, always and ever wrong about everything.
The earth is not flat, the universe does not revolve around earth,
magic does not work, Christians do not work bigger miracles that
Jesus as per Jesus's promise in John 14;12-4.
Ilnesses are not caused by demons, Jesus's prophecy he'd
preside over the end of the earth and judgment day itself
1930 years ago was wrong and the new testament is nonsense.
Its time to admit it and get on with reality and drop all old myths.
I really do agree, but also feel that a person has to be ready to take
that step for themselves. It's no small thing to abandon what you have
been told is the foundation of morality etc...
You see, christians are continually redefining their concept of god;
for instance, note the emergence of the god who is outside time, which
you wouldn't have heard afew years ago.
Its ancient. Boethius , 525 CE for example. I have heard it for ten years
on the net, they pull that old chestnut out regularly enough.
It has severe problems I have laid out.
If time does not really exist, all is, all is one Big Now.
But that means all that is includes every point of the Universe in
time and space and including all interactions of god with the
matter of the Universe in time and space in the Big Now.
God thus has no free will. Nor us. All is frozen and always has been
as all is. How did god and us end up like that, frozen like flies in amber
forever eternally with no beginning and no end to this static, frozen,
unmoving, unchangable Universe? Since time is only an illusion to us,
only we can be alive and aware, god cannot.
Again, they pop out claims and utterly fail to spend two minutes
running the claims out to the logical conclusion. Boethius popularized
this out of time claim and for 1500 years, theology has not had the brains
to see why it must be wrong. Its not rocket science.
The guys who slap this down as an argument likewise, never
bother to examine it before they do.
Its problems are so obvious I wonder how this can be done?
Part of the answer is, nobody any more is taught to think,
to be logical, to look for obvous problems before we spout off claims.
This makes it pretty futile to
try to prove gods don't exist.
Abscence of evidence is enough to work with.
(-: Ian :-)
I like it better when basic, lowest common denimnator claims
self destruct.
Looking at things in terms of LCD claims simplified
to the core concepts seems to be a fruitful way to deal with
complexities.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Naturalism Cannot Have The Final Say |
22 Aug 2005 12:16:17 PM |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2005 02:05:07 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
WCB wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
None of us have access to all the answers -
You seem to have though you had them.
Well I have examined the issue as far as I think philosophy can take me
and I do think there is room for doubt. I don't deny this, because this
is exactly the error fundies are making.
The problem is,
god as concieved by many as a class cannot exist.
That dooms any claims that hang off that concept of god.
Some of us - do have answers.
I agree in terms of the old man with the beard, the personal god does
seem to be an untenable position - and actually always has been; but as
a proportion of the whole, very few christians actually believe in Him.
Thier god is more mysterious and consequetially harder to examine.
To the extent that they impute things like individual judgment and
'a plan for mankind' to their god, beard or no beard is no more than a
fashion statement.
(-: Ian :-)
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
