| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2003 12:07:11 PM |
| Object: |
Serious Question. Honest. |
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 12:49:10 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:d26iovgspgmpbm6ojd5ev3us12tv4esh9u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental.
I
realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said
that.
And yes you are wrong.
All involved believe in their own points of view and will be just as hard
to
"change".
All I need is evidence.
Granted...but "evidence" is rather hard to explain if someone has a totally
different point of view. IOW, all the evidence in the world is unlikely to
sway a believer to the athiest side...and just as unlikely to sway an
atheist to the believer's side...
It is my humble opinion that if we can learn to treat each other with
respect, to respect that the other person has a differing point of view, and
that does not make the other person good/bad, just *different*...we will
come a long way.
Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, it is human nature.
Believing something no matter what is, in my opinion, very wrong.
And I respect your opinion on that...and ask that you respect my *opinion*
as well...which is why I closed with:
I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do realise t
hat
this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 02:03:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:49:10 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:d26iovgspgmpbm6ojd5ev3us12tv4esh9u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental.
I
realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said
that.
And yes you are wrong.
All involved believe in their own points of view and will be just as hard
to
"change".
All I need is evidence.
Granted...but "evidence" is rather hard to explain if someone has a totally
different point of view.
Actually it's very simple.
Evidence does not require an "explanation." It requires demonstration.
Water freezes at 0º Celsius. You can demonstrate this by using a pan
of water and a thermometer. Anyone can observe this. That isyour
evidence.
Do something similar for your universe spanning, omniscient,
omniopotent deity, (who, BTW, seems to be personally and deeply
concerned with some people's sex lives) -- i.e., provide some proof
that he/she/it exists -- something that can be observed by anyone.
That would convince me.
IOW, all the evidence in the world is unlikely to
sway a believer to the athiest side...and just as unlikely to sway an
atheist to the believer's side...
This atheist has just outlined what it will take to make me a
"believer."
It is my humble opinion that if we can learn to treat each other with
respect, to respect that the other person has a differing point of view, and
that does not make the other person good/bad, just *different*...we will
come a long way.
It will start when certain religious fanatics stop trying to ram their
brand of theism down the throats ofothers and trying to legislate
their own personal, subjective (im-)morality into secular law.
Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, it is human nature.
Believing something no matter what is, in my opinion, very wrong.
And I respect your opinion on that...and ask that you respect my *opinion*
as well...which is why I closed with:
I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do realise t
hat
this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.
Buny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 02:39:12 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:49:10 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:d26iovgspgmpbm6ojd5ev3us12tv4esh9u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental.
I
realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said
that.
And yes you are wrong.
All involved believe in their own points of view and will be just as hard
to
"change".
All I need is evidence.
Granted...but "evidence" is rather hard to explain if someone has a totally
different point of view. IOW, all the evidence in the world is unlikely to
sway a believer to the athiest side...and just as unlikely to sway an
atheist to the believer's side...
Believers have stated that they believe no matter what, and they have
never come up with any evidence. Until somebody comes up with some
evidence (concrete, objective evidence), there is no way of knowing
how I would react.
It is my humble opinion that if we can learn to treat each other with
respect, to respect that the other person has a differing point of view, and
that does not make the other person good/bad, just *different*...we will
come a long way.
People deserve respect as people. I respect their right to hold their
beliefs. Their beliefs do not automatically deserve any respect at
all.
Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, it is human nature.
Believing something no matter what is, in my opinion, very wrong.
And I respect your opinion on that...and ask that you respect my *opinion*
as well...which is why I closed with:
I respect your right to have any opinion you wish. It would be
dishonest and silly to respect any opinion. Opinions themselves have
no right to any automatic respect.
I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do realise t
hat
this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.
Buny
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 08:30:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:49:10 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<%pgib.80616$a16.53930@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:d26iovgspgmpbm6ojd5ev3us12tv4esh9u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental.
I
realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said
that.
And yes you are wrong.
All involved believe in their own points of view and will be just as hard
to
"change".
All I need is evidence.
Granted...but "evidence" is rather hard to explain if someone has a totally
different point of view.
Not at all. Objective supporting evidence is objective supporting
evidence. Theism has none which is why 'faith' has been elevated to a
'virtue.'
IOW, all the evidence in the world is unlikely to
sway a believer to the athiest side...
Definately true as theism has nothing to do with evidence and everything
to do with indoctrination and fear.
and just as unlikely to sway an
atheist to the believer's side...
Blatantly false. Those outside the xtian religion often ask theists for
concise definitions and objective supporting evidence for their
assertions. The silence is deafening.
It is my humble opinion that if we can learn to treat each other with
respect, to respect that the other person has a differing point of view, and
that does not make the other person good/bad, just *different*...we will
come a long way.
I agree. However, that is not authorized by the Bible.
And the missionaries continue to go out on their missions of cultural
genocide.
Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, it is human nature.
Believing something no matter what is, in my opinion, very wrong.
And I respect your opinion on that...and ask that you respect my *opinion*
as well...which is why I closed with:
I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do realise t
hat
this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.
Buny
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 01:34:50 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r4kmov89ta34i1ua68irug74nl43j56cgk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:49:10 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
It is my humble opinion that if we can learn to treat each other with
respect, to respect that the other person has a differing point of view,
and
that does not make the other person good/bad, just *different*...we will
come a long way.
I agree. However, that is not authorized by the Bible.
<G> While I am a practicing Catholic, I never claimed to be a "good"
one...why else do we call it "practicing"?
I *do* agree that horrendous things have been done in the name of
religion...also that horrendous things have been done in the name of
promoting atheism as well....I hope/pray that one day we humans can mature
past that point....
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 04:42:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:34:50 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r4kmov89ta34i1ua68irug74nl43j56cgk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:49:10 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
It is my humble opinion that if we can learn to treat each other with
respect, to respect that the other person has a differing point of view,
and
that does not make the other person good/bad, just *different*...we will
come a long way.
I agree. However, that is not authorized by the Bible.
<G> While I am a practicing Catholic, I never claimed to be a "good"
one...why else do we call it "practicing"?
I *do* agree that horrendous things have been done in the name of
religion...also that horrendous things have been done in the name of
promoting atheism as well...
Excuse you?
Hate to be snotty, but one of us was sleeping through history class,
and it wasn't me.
NOTHING has ever been done "in the name of promoting atheism."
Don't even try using Stalin, Pol Pot, or Chairman Mao as examples,
because those can be refuted in one word:
Communism.
And don't try Hitler, either, because Hitler was Catholic, not an
atheist.
No one, in recorded history, has ever gone out and said, "I shall now
slaughter mine enemies in the name of atheism. Bow down and worship as
I do, at the altar of Lack of Belief, lest my atheistic horde of
pillaging marauders and I shall smite thee and thy people with
weaponry and smallpox."
However, I can name more than a few theists who have said AND DONE
just that.
I hope/pray that one day we humans can mature
past that point....
Buny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 12:03:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:34:50 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<arXib.86466$a16.62702@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r4kmov89ta34i1ua68irug74nl43j56cgk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:49:10 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
It is my humble opinion that if we can learn to treat each other with
respect, to respect that the other person has a differing point of view,
and
that does not make the other person good/bad, just *different*...we will
come a long way.
I agree. However, that is not authorized by the Bible.
<G> While I am a practicing Catholic, I never claimed to be a "good"
one...why else do we call it "practicing"?
hehehehhe...
I *do* agree that horrendous things have been done in the name of
religion...
Sadly.
also that horrendous things have been done in the name of
promoting atheism as well....
Nope. A lack of theism is merely that and is not a motivator. There's
nothing to 'promote' with a lack of theism. All it is is the not
believing in theistic assertions. For the motivation of an action you'd
have to look elsewhere.
I hope/pray that one day we humans can mature
past that point....
Only when humans leave childish superstitions behind.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 01:14:32 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:88vqovgg4hddn93cmqbk1lnk8s1d74kvro@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:34:50 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<arXib.86466$a16.62702@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r4kmov89ta34i1ua68irug74nl43j56cgk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:49:10 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
It is my humble opinion that if we can learn to treat each other with
respect, to respect that the other person has a differing point of
view,
and
that does not make the other person good/bad, just *different*...we
will
come a long way.
I agree. However, that is not authorized by the Bible.
<G> While I am a practicing Catholic, I never claimed to be a "good"
one...why else do we call it "practicing"?
hehehehhe...
I *do* agree that horrendous things have been done in the name of
religion...
Sadly.
also that horrendous things have been done in the name of
promoting atheism as well....
Nope. A lack of theism is merely that and is not a motivator. There's
nothing to 'promote' with a lack of theism. All it is is the not
believing in theistic assertions. For the motivation of an action you'd
have to look elsewhere.
I was thinking of the USSR and others along that line...how many were killed
for practicing their religion instead of following the state-sponsored
atheism?
I hope/pray that one day we humans can mature
past that point....
Only when humans leave childish superstitions behind.
Children can be cruel--but not as cruel as adults....
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 05:14:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
Nope. A lack of theism is merely that and is not a motivator. There's
nothing to 'promote' with a lack of theism. All it is is the not
believing in theistic assertions. For the motivation of an action you'd
have to look elsewhere.
I was thinking of the USSR and others along that line...
Nice try. The word you intended was "Communism."
how many were killed
for practicing their religion instead of following the state-sponsored
atheism?
The USSR did not "sponsor" atheism.
The goal of any Communist government is to be in control, totally, so
that the govt. is truly is in charge of all affairs of its citizens.
In the case of Russia, take a look at Russia's history.
Who ruled Russia for the 300 years before he Revolution? The Romanovs.
Who were the Romanovs? The rulers of Russia. Who appointed the Roamnov
men as czars? Allegedly, God (your God, BTW).
Who helped make sure this assertion was believed? The Russian Orthodox
Church. Who performed the coronations, funerals, weddings, and
baptisms for the Romanov family for over 300 years? The Grand High
Poobah Guy from the Russian Orthodox Church.
Whom would the czar seek out for advice and consultation in matters of
state?
1. The church leaders
2. The ministers of the royal entourage approved of by the church.
The Bolsheviks needed to eliminate the church in order to gain total
power. Plain and simple. The church was inextricably linked to the
state government (headed by the czar), and needed to be taken out of
the picture.
And what better way to do it than to subvert and misappropriate the
words of the "inventor" of Communism:
"religion is the opiate of the masses."
Karl Marx never intended this to mean that religion should be
eliminated (although that probably would not have displeased him too
much). Marx's intention was to imply that separation of church and
state is beneficial to a well-run secular state. Of course, Russia was
neither well-run nor secular, so this was a radical departure from the
status quo.
The Bolsheviks needed to eliminate the church, which was, in effect,
running the state, or at the very least, had too big a hand in running
the state.
That's why religion was eliminated from Russia during the Revolution.
And it wasn't just the Russian Orthodoxy which was attacked.
Now, with hsitorical fact in mind, let's address your question:
"how many people were killed {in post-revolutionary Russia) for
practicing their religion instead of following the state-sponsored
atheism?"
The question is disingenuous on its face. A more accurate question
would be:
How many people were killed for not joining the Communist party?
OR
How many people were kiled for posing a "threat" to Communist rule by
holding onto religious beliefs, thereby empowering the Church as a
potential political rival?
OR
Since the post-revolutionaty Russian government did not sponsor a
religion or atheism, why is my original question being skwered?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
16 Oct 2003 03:38:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<F3gjb.88048$a16.3728@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:88vqovgg4hddn93cmqbk1lnk8s1d74kvro@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:34:50 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<arXib.86466$a16.62702@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r4kmov89ta34i1ua68irug74nl43j56cgk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:49:10 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
It is my humble opinion that if we can learn to treat each other with
respect, to respect that the other person has a differing point of
view,
and
that does not make the other person good/bad, just *different*...we
will
come a long way.
I agree. However, that is not authorized by the Bible.
<G> While I am a practicing Catholic, I never claimed to be a "good"
one...why else do we call it "practicing"?
hehehehhe...
I *do* agree that horrendous things have been done in the name of
religion...
Sadly.
also that horrendous things have been done in the name of
promoting atheism as well....
Nope. A lack of theism is merely that and is not a motivator. There's
nothing to 'promote' with a lack of theism. All it is is the not
believing in theistic assertions. For the motivation of an action you'd
have to look elsewhere.
I was thinking of the USSR and others along that line...how many were killed
for practicing their religion instead of following the state-sponsored
atheism?
You're mixing 'oranges' and 'orangatangs' here.
1) Stalin went to seminary as a young man.
2) Lack of theism is not a motivator.
3) Churches remained open during the communist era.
It should be noted, just for interest, Christianity is communistic.
1) What would have Stalin learned in seminary? Often the Church was
not only against the (those in) Head of State (gov positions) but
formented, hid, and supported insurrection.
a) Clearly the church was a competing power structure. Competitors
have a tendency to be watched closely.
b) The church has no problem absolving people of all sorts of
atrocities ahead of time (cue the Crusades).
c) The church has no hesitiation about lying in pursuit of their own
ends. (The ends justify the means as long as it prophets (deliberate
spelling) the church.
2) I lack thirst. The lack of thirst is not a motivator to eat, drink,
or screw Mary. (apologize for the latter, my off-beat sense of humour
got the best of me). :))))
a) I lack thirst and yet drink a glass of water. It's quite apparent
thirst was not the motivator, so we have to look elsewhere.
b) An observer could ponder motivation(s) for such actions.
(1) The person might be going somewhere where water was not going to
be available for some time.
(2) Federal guidelines suggest drinking several glasses of water on
a daily basis.
(3) Other.
Listening and observing brings out the information the person was going
to be travelling for an hour to an hour and a half. Stopping would have
been time consuming, involved, and difficult. The efficient thing to do
was increase their body's hydration to cover the needed time frame.
Lack of thirst was not a motivator. The motivator was elsewhere.
The same situation holds with a lack of theism. Lack of theism was not
a motivator, so what was?
It can be seen that one motivator was the historical/current underhanded
tactics of the religious institution leader(s).
Flip side. How many have been killed by the religious because they were
not of the *right* sect?
I hope/pray that one day we humans can mature
past that point....
Only when humans leave childish superstitions behind.
Children can be cruel--but not as cruel as adults....
who follow the various superstitions.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 11:33:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental. I
realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said that.
Atheism requires no belief.
All involved believe in their own points of view and will be just as hard to
"change". Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, it is human nature.
I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do realise that
this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 12:45:05 PM |
|
|
"maf 1029" <maf1029@hotmailabc.com> wrote in message
news:ogmhovcalgf2q8mk74kkcqtq5umgmlmc7l@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental.
I
realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said
that.
Atheism requires no belief.
In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same coin...perhaps a
more clear word would have been "choice", but that too can be seen as vague
(as in, "I do not choose to believe or not")....can you help me with this?
A person who believes in something and a person who does not believe in that
thing are both exercising _____ part of their mind....
FWIW, I have this same concept about anything having to do with
belief-whether or not it is religious or not..."I believe that he loves me,
I believe that ____exists," whatever...
All involved believe in their own points of view and will be just as hard
to
"change". Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, it is human nature.
I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do realise
that
this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 04:11:36 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same coin...perhaps a
more clear word would have been "choice", but that too can be seen as vague
(as in, "I do not choose to believe or not")....can you help me with this?
A person who believes in something and a person who does not believe in that
thing are both exercising _____ part of their mind....
FWIW, I have this same concept about anything having to do with
belief-whether or not it is religious or not..."I believe that he loves me,
I believe that ____exists," whatever...
A simpler example. . .
The guy living next door to me has a belief in a god. The mailbox in his
front yard lacks belief in a god. Does the mailbox use the same part of
its mind to hold this lack of belief, or does the mailbox simply lack a
property that the neighbor has?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 01:31:55 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:fggjov01so0v7dool6e13rrncgedrc9q41@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same coin...perhaps
a
more clear word would have been "choice", but that too can be seen as
vague
(as in, "I do not choose to believe or not")....can you help me with
this?
A person who believes in something and a person who does not believe in
that
thing are both exercising _____ part of their mind....
FWIW, I have this same concept about anything having to do with
belief-whether or not it is religious or not..."I believe that he loves
me,
I believe that ____exists," whatever...
A simpler example. . .
The guy living next door to me has a belief in a god. The mailbox in his
front yard lacks belief in a god. Does the mailbox use the same part of
its mind to hold this lack of belief, or does the mailbox simply lack a
property that the neighbor has?
Interesting...I would not say that the mailbox "lacks" a property that the
neighbor has, but has a different one...
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 01:51:57 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:fggjov01so0v7dool6e13rrncgedrc9q41@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same coin...perhaps
a
more clear word would have been "choice", but that too can be seen as
vague
(as in, "I do not choose to believe or not")....can you help me with
this?
A person who believes in something and a person who does not believe in
that
thing are both exercising _____ part of their mind....
FWIW, I have this same concept about anything having to do with
belief-whether or not it is religious or not..."I believe that he loves
me,
I believe that ____exists," whatever...
A simpler example. . .
The guy living next door to me has a belief in a god. The mailbox in his
front yard lacks belief in a god. Does the mailbox use the same part of
its mind to hold this lack of belief, or does the mailbox simply lack a
property that the neighbor has?
Interesting...I would not say that the mailbox "lacks" a property that the
neighbor has, but has a different one...
It's quite simple. My neighbor has the property of belief in a god. His
mailbox lacks that property.
If you say that the mailbox has a "different" property regarding
god-belief than my neighbor does, you'll need to explain further. I
don't see how a mailbox can have any belief properties of any kind, so
it would by definition lack any belief in gods or anything else.
My neighbor also has the property of "hair" that his mailbox lacks.
Would you similarly suggest that the mailbox does not actually lack hair
but actually has hair of a different kind?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 03:30:54 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:b4hoovkikmu884rus9pkppqc5kcs8e8s5t@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:fggjov01so0v7dool6e13rrncgedrc9q41@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same
coin...perhaps
a
more clear word would have been "choice", but that too can be seen as
vague
(as in, "I do not choose to believe or not")....can you help me with
this?
A person who believes in something and a person who does not believe
in
that
thing are both exercising _____ part of their mind....
FWIW, I have this same concept about anything having to do with
belief-whether or not it is religious or not..."I believe that he
loves
me,
I believe that ____exists," whatever...
A simpler example. . .
The guy living next door to me has a belief in a god. The mailbox in
his
front yard lacks belief in a god. Does the mailbox use the same part of
its mind to hold this lack of belief, or does the mailbox simply lack a
property that the neighbor has?
Interesting...I would not say that the mailbox "lacks" a property that
the
neighbor has, but has a different one...
It's quite simple. My neighbor has the property of belief in a god. His
mailbox lacks that property.
You could also go as far as to say that the reason why the mailbox does not
believe is that it lacks the brain to understand--I am unwilling to go to
that step, because I do not believe that intellect has anything to do with
belief structures...
If you say that the mailbox has a "different" property regarding
god-belief than my neighbor does, you'll need to explain further. I
don't see how a mailbox can have any belief properties of any kind, so
it would by definition lack any belief in gods or anything else.
The mailbox cannot be atheistic either, because it lacks the properties of
those who have explained how they arrive at that beleif...that there is no
god...
My neighbor also has the property of "hair" that his mailbox lacks.
Would you similarly suggest that the mailbox does not actually lack hair
but actually has hair of a different kind?
I do not see believing that there is no god as a lack...it seems that you
do.
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 04:10:12 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:b4hoovkikmu884rus9pkppqc5kcs8e8s5t@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:fggjov01so0v7dool6e13rrncgedrc9q41@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same
coin...perhaps
a
more clear word would have been "choice", but that too can be seen as
vague
(as in, "I do not choose to believe or not")....can you help me with
this?
A person who believes in something and a person who does not believe
in
that
thing are both exercising _____ part of their mind....
FWIW, I have this same concept about anything having to do with
belief-whether or not it is religious or not..."I believe that he
loves
me,
I believe that ____exists," whatever...
A simpler example. . .
The guy living next door to me has a belief in a god. The mailbox in
his
front yard lacks belief in a god. Does the mailbox use the same part of
its mind to hold this lack of belief, or does the mailbox simply lack a
property that the neighbor has?
Interesting...I would not say that the mailbox "lacks" a property that
the
neighbor has, but has a different one...
It's quite simple. My neighbor has the property of belief in a god. His
mailbox lacks that property.
You could also go as far as to say that the reason why the mailbox does not
believe is that it lacks the brain to understand--I am unwilling to go to
that step, because I do not believe that intellect has anything to do with
belief structures...
You would be correct, but the fact still stands that the mailbox lacks
any sort of belief in gods. Why it lacks belief in gods doesn't change
the fact that it does indeed lack the property of belief.
Lemme put it this way. Five minutes ago, what were your beliefs
regarding purple and yellow striped flying guppies that live on the
fourth planet orbiting Sirius? Unless you spend all day imagining
fantasy creatures, you had not given thought to such things, so you
would completely lack any property of belief in them. Hence you were
a-guppyist.
I say "five minutes ago", because some folks are into this "if you
picture it, you then have drawn a conclusion about them". Five minutes
ago, however, you had no beliefs at all regarding such things.
If you say that the mailbox has a "different" property regarding
god-belief than my neighbor does, you'll need to explain further. I
don't see how a mailbox can have any belief properties of any kind, so
it would by definition lack any belief in gods or anything else.
The mailbox cannot be atheistic either, because it lacks the properties of
those who have explained how they arrive at that beleif...that there is no
god...
There's your problem again. Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a lack
of belief.
My neighbor also has the property of "hair" that his mailbox lacks.
Would you similarly suggest that the mailbox does not actually lack hair
but actually has hair of a different kind?
I do not see believing that there is no god as a lack...it seems that you
do.
"believing that there is no god" is not required to lack theism.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 01:13:13 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:h5poov8osrcj0t6km1f5k3476kj9r65fv3@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
It's quite simple. My neighbor has the property of belief in a god. His
mailbox lacks that property.
You could also go as far as to say that the reason why the mailbox does
not
believe is that it lacks the brain to understand--I am unwilling to go to
that step, because I do not believe that intellect has anything to do
with
belief structures...
You would be correct, but the fact still stands that the mailbox lacks
any sort of belief in gods. Why it lacks belief in gods doesn't change
the fact that it does indeed lack the property of belief.
Lemme put it this way. Five minutes ago, what were your beliefs
regarding purple and yellow striped flying guppies that live on the
fourth planet orbiting Sirius? Unless you spend all day imagining
fantasy creatures, you had not given thought to such things, so you
would completely lack any property of belief in them. Hence you were
a-guppyist.
<G> Great visual here...
Let's say that I cannot discount the possibility that they exist. In this
case, I probably sound more agnostic. Then again, I have a really hard time
with the concept that we on Earth are the only creations of God...many
fundamentalists (including fundamentalist Catholics) would vehemently argue
otherwise. Me--I see this as a waste of a lot of Power to spend it only on
one mere speck in a large universe (or more than one universe).
I say "five minutes ago", because some folks are into this "if you
picture it, you then have drawn a conclusion about them". Five minutes
ago, however, you had no beliefs at all regarding such things.
Unless that falls under my above-stated belief that there is likely life
"somewhere out there" (insert cheesy song from animated movie <G>). I had a
belief, just not a visual for it until 5 minutes ago.
Then again, I have been called a "hopeless romantic" who would rather see
the good in others instead of looking for the bad...
If you say that the mailbox has a "different" property regarding
god-belief than my neighbor does, you'll need to explain further. I
don't see how a mailbox can have any belief properties of any kind, so
it would by definition lack any belief in gods or anything else.
The mailbox cannot be atheistic either, because it lacks the properties
of
those who have explained how they arrive at that belief...that there is
no
god...
There's your problem again. Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a lack
of belief.
I see...maybe <g> I have a "lack of belief" in polytheism...that is because
I believe something else is in control. I am not overly familiar with
atheism, except to see it as a belief in the laws of science controlling the
universe. I believe that those laws also control the universe--just that
the one who "wrote" the laws is named Yahweh.
My neighbor also has the property of "hair" that his mailbox lacks.
Would you similarly suggest that the mailbox does not actually lack
hair
but actually has hair of a different kind?
I do not see believing that there is no god as a lack...it seems that you
do.
"believing that there is no god" is not required to lack theism.
I can see your definition...and I do realise that-at this point-we are
discussing semantics. No problem there, understanding each other's
semantics leads to further understanding of others' POVs. IMHO, that is the
whole point of this (and many others) board.
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 02:15:27 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:h5poov8osrcj0t6km1f5k3476kj9r65fv3@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
It's quite simple. My neighbor has the property of belief in a god. His
mailbox lacks that property.
You could also go as far as to say that the reason why the mailbox does
not
believe is that it lacks the brain to understand--I am unwilling to go to
that step, because I do not believe that intellect has anything to do
with
belief structures...
You would be correct, but the fact still stands that the mailbox lacks
any sort of belief in gods. Why it lacks belief in gods doesn't change
the fact that it does indeed lack the property of belief.
Lemme put it this way. Five minutes ago, what were your beliefs
regarding purple and yellow striped flying guppies that live on the
fourth planet orbiting Sirius? Unless you spend all day imagining
fantasy creatures, you had not given thought to such things, so you
would completely lack any property of belief in them. Hence you were
a-guppyist.
<G> Great visual here...
Thanks.
Let's say that I cannot discount the possibility that they exist. In this
case, I probably sound more agnostic.
I didn't ask if they existed. I asked if you had any belief regarding
such creatures five minutes before I mentioned them to you.
The answer is "no", as no such thought had crossed your mind. There is
no way you could have a positive belief in those specific creatures if
you'd never given thought to them. You completely lacked belief in them,
as you had never given such things any thought whatsoever. Therefore you
had no belief, making you aguppyist.
Then again, I have a really hard time
with the concept that we on Earth are the only creations of God...many
fundamentalists (including fundamentalist Catholics) would vehemently argue
otherwise. Me--I see this as a waste of a lot of Power to spend it only on
one mere speck in a large universe (or more than one universe).
I say "five minutes ago", because some folks are into this "if you
picture it, you then have drawn a conclusion about them". Five minutes
ago, however, you had no beliefs at all regarding such things.
Unless that falls under my above-stated belief that there is likely life
"somewhere out there" (insert cheesy song from animated movie <G>). I had a
belief, just not a visual for it until 5 minutes ago.
No you didn't. You might've had a belief in life of some kind, but you
had none at all regarding the specific creatures I mentioned.
Then again, I have been called a "hopeless romantic" who would rather see
the good in others instead of looking for the bad...
If you say that the mailbox has a "different" property regarding
god-belief than my neighbor does, you'll need to explain further. I
don't see how a mailbox can have any belief properties of any kind, so
it would by definition lack any belief in gods or anything else.
The mailbox cannot be atheistic either, because it lacks the properties
of
those who have explained how they arrive at that belief...that there is
no
god...
There's your problem again. Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a lack
of belief.
I see...maybe <g> I have a "lack of belief" in polytheism...
No. You have a lack of belief in polytheistic gods. Polytheism is the
term for belief in many gods. If you believe that people exist who
believe in multiple gods (and you probably do unless you think a billion
Hindus are faking it), then you believe that polytheism exists.
I think your problem is that you're confusing the -ism with the god
itself. Theos is a god. Theism is belief in a god. To be atheist is to
lack theism.
that is because
I believe something else is in control. I am not overly familiar with
atheism, except to see it as a belief in the laws of science controlling the
universe.
And you would be wrong again. There are people who believe in a god who
also believe that the laws of science control the universe.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and no more. A person who makes a
positive declaration that gods do not exist is also an atheist, but only
because such a declaration necessarily asuumes lack of belief.
I believe that those laws also control the universe--just that
the one who "wrote" the laws is named Yahweh.
Then you have a belief in that god. I lack such belief.
My neighbor also has the property of "hair" that his mailbox lacks.
Would you similarly suggest that the mailbox does not actually lack
hair
but actually has hair of a different kind?
I do not see believing that there is no god as a lack...it seems that you
do.
"believing that there is no god" is not required to lack theism.
I can see your definition...and I do realise that-at this point-we are
discussing semantics. No problem there, understanding each other's
semantics leads to further understanding of others' POVs. IMHO, that is the
whole point of this (and many others) board.
And I appreciate you being civil about the whole thing.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 03:18:32 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:gc6rovoljopbi3u3hckk41ml1b2ef3q0qg@4ax.com...
I can see your definition...and I do realise that-at this point-we are
discussing semantics. No problem there, understanding each other's
semantics leads to further understanding of others' POVs. IMHO, that is
the
whole point of this (and many others) board.
And I appreciate you being civil about the whole thing.
"Back atcha"...I realise that I have some major thinking to do on the
concepts of atheism, atheists, et al...and always appreciate someone who
takes the time to "teach, not preach"..
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
16 Oct 2003 02:59:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:18:32 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<UThjb.88096$a16.37401@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:gc6rovoljopbi3u3hckk41ml1b2ef3q0qg@4ax.com...
I can see your definition...and I do realise that-at this point-we are
discussing semantics. No problem there, understanding each other's
semantics leads to further understanding of others' POVs. IMHO, that is
the
whole point of this (and many others) board.
And I appreciate you being civil about the whole thing.
"Back atcha"...I realise that I have some major thinking to do on the
concepts of atheism, atheists, et al...and always appreciate someone who
takes the time to "teach, not preach"..
Most of us in aa will lend an assist to others. Sadly, the majority of
theists are of the 'Weatherly' persuasion. In such cases the most
productive avenue to take is that of amusement.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 05:17:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:13:13 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
I have a "lack of belief" in polytheism...
Except for the whole Trinity thing.
And it could be argued that the BVM is the fourth god.
And then add in all those saints, and we're up to 400+.
that is because
I believe something else is in control. I am not overly familiar with
atheism, except to see it as a belief in the laws of science controlling the
universe.
Again, that's not what atehism is.
<sigh>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 01:55:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:45:05 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"maf 1029" <maf1029@hotmailabc.com> wrote in message
news:ogmhovcalgf2q8mk74kkcqtq5umgmlmc7l@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental.
I
realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said
that.
Atheism requires no belief.
In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same coin...
And having a coin is still not the same as lacking a coin.
perhaps a
more clear word would have been "choice", but that too can be seen as vague
(as in, "I do not choose to believe or not")....can you help me with this?
Theism is a choice.
Atheism is the default position. We are all born atheists.
Theism/belief is learned. Atheism is not.
A person who believes in something and a person who does not believe in that
thing are both exercising _____ part of their mind....
Physologically, people who believe are letting a part of their brain
shut down (cf EEG's of people praying or having a "religious
experience"), while physiologically people who are atheists are using
critical thinking skills to and are exercising that part of their
brain.
Analytically, people who believe have been indoctrinated to believe
and are told what the dogma, philosophy, and doctrines are for their
sect.
People who don't believe are given no such indoctrination, as lack of
belief does not have dogma, philosophy, or doctrines.
FWIW, I have this same concept about anything having to do with
belief-whether or not it is religious or not..."I believe that he loves me,
I believe that ____exists," whatever...
Let's take the example of my dog (probably a bad example, since I will
be anthropomorphizing my beloved canine companion)
dog loves me. he curls up next to me at night, and on the couch
during Buffy reruns (affection). He warded off a potential mugger more
than once (protection).
IMO, those actions qualify as love. My dog loves me, as evidenced
through observable, quantifiable behavior.
I love my dog. I feed him, care for him, protect him, give him
cookies, and rub his head.
No belief is required from either of us that we love each other.
If you give specific examples, you can think through whether belief is
required for something's existence. For most examples, belief is not
required: gravity, books, the ground, trees, atomic particles, Gary
Coleman, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 01:30:45 PM |
|
|
"maf 1029" <maf1029@hotmailabc.com> wrote in message
news:568jovcdnp55c4944j1sk61a2qa021ek0d@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:45:05 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"maf 1029" <maf1029@hotmailabc.com> wrote in message
news:ogmhovcalgf2q8mk74kkcqtq5umgmlmc7l@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of
fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is
no
God.
<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as
judgemental.
I
realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues,
the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said
that.
Atheism requires no belief.
In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same coin...
And having a coin is still not the same as lacking a coin.
perhaps a
more clear word would have been "choice", but that too can be seen as
vague
(as in, "I do not choose to believe or not")....can you help me with
this?
Theism is a choice.
Atheism is the default position. We are all born atheists.
Theism/belief is learned. Atheism is not.
I can understand that POV. However, I cannot see me as "choosing" to
believe something that has been a part of my life-a central part. It has
been part of my thought processes, part of my psyche as it were, for so
long, I cannot see "deciding to cut it out."
It is possible that we are all born atheists-but since a child learns
practically from first breath--but does not speak for a long time--it is
unlikely that we will ever be able to find out for certainty. Does a child
of atheists grow up to be an atheist? Probably...but does that mean he/she
will always be one? I have difficulty dealing with absolutes, so I would
have to say that should be a "no".
Does a child of those who believe in a certain faith grow up to retain that
faith? Probably...but the same reasoning applies that he/she is not
guaranteed to keep it.
A person who believes in something and a person who does not believe in
that
thing are both exercising _____ part of their mind....
Physologically, people who believe are letting a part of their brain
shut down (cf EEG's of people praying or having a "religious
experience"), while physiologically people who are atheists are using
critical thinking skills to and are exercising that part of their
brain.
Or, could it be a case of hyperfocus...as in the case of meditation. I have
compared the state of hyperfocus I have entered when doing T'ai Chi Chuan to
the state of hyperfocus I enter when I have done contemplative rosary (which
has not been that often--t'ai chi, on the other hand, I did several times a
week while pursuing my black belt in kung fu some years back). It is not
"shutting down" part of the brain, but actually using it in a different way,
a more focused way. Another example can be seen in the Lamaze technique, or
self-induced hypnosis...
Or, perhaps not...that is my experience and theory.
Analytically, people who believe have been indoctrinated to believe
and are told what the dogma, philosophy, and doctrines are for their
sect.
People who don't believe are given no such indoctrination, as lack of
belief does not have dogma, philosophy, or doctrines.
So is it possible that this "there is no God" is a concept that is actually
learned as well? Not that I wish to pit science against theology--I believe
that the two can work together--but the concept that everything can be
explained, can this be learned as well?
FWIW, I have this same concept about anything having to do with
belief-whether or not it is religious or not..."I believe that he loves
me,
I believe that ____exists," whatever...
Let's take the example of my dog (probably a bad example, since I will
be anthropomorphizing my beloved canine companion)
<G> Don't we all do that, though?
dog loves me. he curls up next to me at night, and on the couch
during Buffy reruns (affection). He warded off a potential mugger more
than once (protection).
IMO, those actions qualify as love. My dog loves me, as evidenced
through observable, quantifiable behavior.
I love my dog. I feed him, care for him, protect him, give him
cookies, and rub his head.
No belief is required from either of us that we love each other.
Perhaps...but what if the curling up to you is merely a response to his
needing warmth, or instinctual pack mentality? You are "alpha dog", so he
retains some of the puppy instincts...no "love", merely pack mentality
(i.e., does a dog in the wild "love" the pack, or only depend on it for
survivla?) The warding off mugger? Again, pack mentality of protecting
what is his...
Please note that I am not trying to say that dog doesn't love you...but am
going to the other side of the fence ("devil's advocate") to argue the
point....actually, to argue the "you cannot believe in things that cannot be
scientifically proven...such as emotion"...
If you give specific examples, you can think through whether belief is
required for something's existence. For most examples, belief is not
required: gravity, books, the ground, trees, atomic particles, Gary
Coleman, etc.
<G> How about not believing in electricity? "I haven't paid my electric
bill this month...I didn't see it..." (Stephen Wright)
I realise I am stretching somewhat...but I *do* like a good conversation
and/or debate among friends...
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 04:15:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:30:45 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
Analytically, people who believe have been indoctrinated to believe
and are told what the dogma, philosophy, and doctrines are for their
sect.
People who don't believe are given no such indoctrination, as lack of
belief does not have dogma, philosophy, or doctrines.
So is it possible that this "there is no God"
??????????????
I have no clue what you're talking about, buny.
And, quite frankly, neither do you, since you're not discussing
atheism in general (lack of belief), or specifically, my lack of
belief (atheism).
is a concept that is actually
learned as well?
Once again, atheism is the default position. Everyone is born an
atheis | | | | | |
