| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Voice of Truth" |
| Date: |
18 Oct 2004 02:30:07 PM |
| Object: |
The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
Cartoon reality
I begin with a quote from the Secular Web, one that rings with all the
pomposity, righteousness and religiosity of a creed or a new
Declaration of Independence.
"Our goal is to defend and promote a nontheistic worldview which holds
that the natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no
need of supernatural explanation and sufficient unto itself."
Despite the dexterity of the expression the creed is basically a
negative one: "We do NOT believe in God." They have gotten the
"worldview" part right but the use of the term "holds" is a
philosophical sleight of hand. What they really mean is that they
"believe" that the natural world is all there is. The flipside of not
believing in God is believing in "No God"; such a belief is fraught
with metaphysical consequences. That it is proclaimed that this closed
system has no "need" of supernatural explanation is mere begging the
question. It's like Mickey and Donald proclaiming that they have no
need of Walt Disney in their cartoon world, that they are indeed
sufficient unto themselves, but the fact remains that they and their
world would not exist without Walt.
People have a tendency to believe what they want, and to disbelieve
what they find personally confronting. This cuts both ways: the
fervent believer and the most ardent skeptical non-believer can both
fall prey to self-deception and self-justification. The skeptic, would
probably reject this assertion, believing (sic) that he is immune from
this particular human foible - that it is only gullible religionists
who cannot deal with "the facts", or face up to "reality". For
himself, he is completely rational, logical and "scientific" is he
not? While rationality and logic are two exemplary attributes they can
at times actually lead one away from the truth and not towards it. The
Apostle Paul wrote most deflatingly of the reductionist failure to see
the forest for the trees:
"...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the
truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God
has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever
since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So
they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not
honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in
their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be
wise, they became fools..."
Much earlier the Psalmist wrote "the fool has said in his heart there
is no God".
It has been said that the Gospel comforts the afflicted and afflicts
the comfortable. For the afflicted it is good news of comfort and
hope, but for those already comfortable western skeptics for whom all
religion, but especially the Christian message, is truly offensive,
the Gospel is indeed an affliction, one that they must rid the world
of by any means.
Though himself a skeptic, journalist and author Joel Achenbach noted
without apparent irony in his book Captured by Aliens: The Search for
Life and Truth in a Very Large Universe that:
"Many skeptics seem truly angry and outraged that religion has
survived the modern age. One gets the sense that these skeptics lose
sleep at night knowing that someone, somewhere, is believing in
something that is unsupported by an evidentiary database."
Though his book is an examination of the UFO and alien phenomena ,
Achenbach, the skeptic, states: "Let's face it: the question that
really matters, that underlies everything else, is not whether you
believe in aliens, or anomalies, or the new physics, or the vastness
of the unknown. The important and timeless question is: Do you believe
in God?"
Most people nowadays feel uncomfortable with the notion that there is
any higher authority than the self, that they may be held responsible
for their actions by a higher power in the universe. Who wants to
accept that they might have to stand before a divine judge and give an
account of their thoughts and deeds? In this climate a belief in, say,
the reality of Julius Caesar is harmless, for such a belief makes no
demands upon us or our lifestyle. People can continue to do their own
thing and live a selfish life whether Caesar ruled Rome or not. But if
God who holds humans accountable really exists and really intervened
in history then they may have to think twice about how they should
live in the light of this truth. So I am suggesting that many
skeptical atheists reject God because they either fear him, despise
him or hate him. The fact of the matter is that "he who comes to God
must believe that he is and that he rewards those who earnestly seek
him." So atheism is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. On this
matter we must play by God's rules, not he by ours. As long as we
remain committed to the proposition that God does not, and cannot,
exist we will never find him anywhere, for it is only as we open up to
his possibility we will begin to notice rumours of glory all around.
Following the lead of philosopher David Hume, skeptics declare that
the simple, rational and logical reason for their antipathy to God is
that there is no evidence at all for anything supernatural anywhere in
the world at any time. But this statement is demonstrably false.
Plenty of evidence for the supernatural exists, including thousands of
eyewitness accounts, written reports, personal testimonials, and
learned treatises.
What there isn't is "scientific evidence" or "empirical evidence" or
"proof" for the supernatural. That's because the scientific method
relies on replicable experiments, and the "supernatural" (by
definition) is outside of the "natural laws" which govern such
experiments.
Someone has said that we live in a "cartoon reality". The laws of
nature describe what happens in the normal course of events of our
"cartoon reality", but they cannot tell us much about what happens
behind the scenes or about the creator/designer's intentions or
purposes outside and apart from the cartoon world. We may pick up
hints and clues, signs and intimations but only the creator himself
can really let us in on the big picture.
Cartoons, like films, books and plays, have their own internal logic
but we wisely never assume that their reality is the sum total of all
existing reality. The successful cartoonist, author, playwright or
director creates his own self -contained "real" world, one that often
speaks powerfully to us, but we would be seriously - even dangerously
- mistaken if we failed to recognise that there is another reality
waiting when the curtain falls, the book is closed, or the film stops
rolling and we stumble blinking into the light.
Shakespeare, as usual, said it well:
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts..."
What I am suggesting is that while in one sense we are mere players
strutting on a stage, in another sense we have another deeper "waking
life" awaiting us when we the play is over and we take off our makeup
and costume and catch the taxi or bus home from the theatre. In
opposition to this the skeptic's assertion is, that in effect, "the
Play's the Thing", the only thing that ever was and ever will be -
that the cartoon is the reality. When you are in the cartoon, cartoon
laws apply. But do cartoon laws apply to the one who created the
cartoon or to the ones viewing it?
Skeptics will readily believe in something like the Battle of
Thermopolae on the basis of no greater evidence than that provided for
the miracle of the loaves and the fishes (i.e. eyewitness accounts).
Philosophically they are opposes to the latter while not being opposed
to the former because the Battle of Thermoplae presents no personal
challenge to their worldview whereas the man who performed the miracle
of the loaves and fishes does. Of course there is not much "scientific
evidence" for most historical events - the evidence is of a different
kind. Skeptics continually ask for "proof" when speaking of historical
and wholly unrepeatable events. But, as has been pointed out, an
historian cannot empirically demonstrate an historical event. (e.g.
How would one empirically or scientifically "prove" the exploits of
Washington or Napoleon?)
One can only provide enough evidence for historical events and persons
so as to push them beyond reasonable doubt. However, if you have
already concluded that the supernatural is completely unreasonable,
there is not much I can do to convince you. You have already built
your worldview upon an unproven and unprovable assumption: that
reality is to be defined by what is accessible to scientific
experimentation. Thus for the determined atheist, no evidence of
phenomena beyond the natural is ever reasonable enough. The Christian
who affirms the fact of the resurrection - in the atheist's opinion -
is talking nonsense, for such a thing is impossible! Thus, it is no
surprise when the atheist concludes that no evidence will be
sufficient because in his frame of reference "evidence" means
scientific, empirical evidence. His philosophy overrules whatever the
historical data suggests which instead must be made to fit his
worldview. For others, not shackled to blind faith in an unprovable
assumption, the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is quite
impressive.
Eyewitness testimony is the bedrock of all historical verification. If
one presumes that eyewitnesses cannot be accurate, (or highly
accurate) no one else who was not an eyewitness can come within cooee
of accuracy as to what actually happened in the past. The holds as
true for the evolutionary history of the development of life on earth,
as it does for the recorded history of humans - except for one major
difference; for the former we have NO eyewitnesses and for the latter
we have lots. And yet the former is accorded the status of fact while
the latter when it pertains to Jesus Christ or the "supernatural" is
immediately dismissed out of hand. Curioser and curioser...
In as much as myself and many others have come to belief in God, it
may indeed be mystifying to skeptics, but not impossible, that our
faith is indeed based upon solid evidence. Faith is another word for
trust. Trust in the empirical evidence of eyewitness, trust in the
historical validity of eyewitness accounts, trust in the testimony of
countless others, and supremely trust in our personal encounter with
the Other, the I Am, the living God. Skeptics could leap in and find
out for themselves, firsthand as it were, whether there is any
validity to the Christian claims, or they can stay outside and make
sniping remarks ‘til the cows come home. It's their choice. I
really do believe that if you were to take God "at his word" he would
indeed "prove" himself to any genuine seeker. But again, this is a
choice only the individual can make. It's sort of like a romance, the
tentative way we try to make contact with that special other. At some
point we have to "step out in faith". God will not bludgeon us into
belief; he always respects our free choice.
Christianity is indeed about faith, that is, a matter of trust, but it
is trust based onevidences. Skeptics often give me the strong
impression that they have a loaded definition of the concept of faith
- sort of in the vein of "believing things you know aren't true" or
something akin to fairy tales or myths. And that somehow by getting
Christians to own up to this "faith" they can then launch into an
attack based upon the philosophical presupposition that nature is all
there is, that nature equals reality, in order to show that religious
belief is just a castle in the air, a crutch for weak minded people...
But nobody "believes" in things which they "know" are false or myths
or fairy tales. People may at times be mistaken or misguided but it is
just nonsense to say that people believe in things that are false
merely because it gives them comfort. I think what you will find is
Christians saying that we have faith in God as we affirm the
historical reality of his intervention in space and time. This may
beyond empiricism but it is not beyond historical investigation.
http://tertius.blogspot.com/2003/01/cartoon-reality.html
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
18 Oct 2004 02:54:13 PM |
|
|
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all power, legislative,
executive, and judicial in the same hands...
may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny."
- James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len Budney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 09:56:04 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
--Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 10:12:30 AM |
|
|
"Len Budney" <lbudney@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9213c87c.0410190656.4ff0244f@posting.google.com...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
I'll bite back: Prove it.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len Budney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 07:04:44 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Len Budney" <lbudney@pobox.com> wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"...When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
I'll bite back: Prove it.
Please learn to read: the claim was that when I state why I reject
other God's, you will cite that as your reason for rejecting mine. The
reply asserted by Mr. Roberts is, then, "I reject your God because
your God is real."
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
20 Oct 2004 06:29:43 AM |
|
|
"Len Budney" <lbudney@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9213c87c.0410191604.5035c1c1@posting.google.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Len Budney" <lbudney@pobox.com> wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"...When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
I'll bite back: Prove it.
Please learn to read:
Please learn not to be an *****:
the claim was that when I state why I reject
other God's, you will cite that as your reason for rejecting mine. The
reply asserted by Mr. Roberts is, then, "I reject your God because
your God is real."
Wrong - Do you believe your god is real? Yes or no. And if the answer is
yes, I invite you to prove it.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len Budney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
20 Oct 2004 01:35:26 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
Please learn not to be an *****:
Learn to read.
The original claim was that my reason for rejecting Odin, is also
Roberts's reason for rejecting the Judeo-Christian God. I observe that
this claim cannot be true with full generality.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
20 Oct 2004 04:08:28 PM |
|
|
"Len Budney" <lbudney@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9213c87c.0410201035.4e029d8b@posting.google.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
Please learn not to be an *****:
Learn to read.
I see you haven't learned not to be an *****.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len Budney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
21 Oct 2004 05:33:32 AM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
Please learn not to be an *****:
Learn to read.
I see you haven't learned not to be an *****.
Thanks for your opinion. The opinion of an illiterate doesn't mean
much, but you're entitled to it.
Mr. Roberts stated without qualification that whatever my reason for
rejecting Odin, it is also his reason for rejecting Yahweh. This is
manifestly false, as I've demonstrated. He did not restrict his
statement to the case in which my reason is agreeable to him;
therefore if my reason is, "I reject Odin because lambs are fuzzy,"
then he claims he rejects Yahweh for the same reason.
What he really meant was, "If you reject Odin for the reason that I
reject Yahweh, then I reject Yahweh for the reason that you reject
Odin. If instead your reasons aren't acceptable to me, I will simply
call you an *****, as will Robibnikoff."
His *intended* statement was a tautology, and hence practically
meaningless.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
21 Oct 2004 05:49:22 PM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2004 03:33:32 -0700, (Len Budney) wrote:
Mr. Roberts stated without qualification that whatever my reason for
rejecting Odin, it is also his reason for rejecting Yahweh.
What he said was, "When you understand your reasons",
Not merely know them, but *understand them.
It is rather like a child learning the multiplication tables.
He may know the tables by heart, but that does not mean that he
understands them.
It is a bit like me asking you why the TV came on,
and you replying, "because I pressed the button"
Me\ But what happened when you pressed the button?
You\ The TV came on.
Etc.
This is
manifestly false, as I've demonstrated. He did not restrict his
statement to the case in which my reason is agreeable to him;
therefore if my reason is, "I reject Odin because lambs are fuzzy,"
then he claims he rejects Yahweh for the same reason.
There is nothing in Roberts' statement, that suggests that, but there
is a lot in your posts, to suggest that you are evading the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len Budney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
21 Oct 2004 09:42:29 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
lbudney@pobox.com (Len Budney) wrote:
Mr. Roberts stated without qualification that whatever
my reason for rejecting Odin, it is also his reason for
rejecting Yahweh.
What he said was, "When you understand your reasons",
Not merely know them, but *understand them.
I see. So when I state my reason, you deem me not to understand it,
unless that reason meets with your approval. Yet again, you prove my
point: Roberts's statement is tautological, because it presumes that
no response from me is acceptable other than the one which makes his
statement true.
There is nothing in Roberts' statement, that suggests that, but there
is a lot in your posts, to suggest that you are evading the issue.
Thanks for your uninformed opinion.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
20 Oct 2004 10:34:47 AM |
|
|
(Len Budney) wrote in message news:<9213c87c.0410191604.5035c1c1@posting.google.com>...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Len Budney" < > wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"...When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
I'll bite back: Prove it.
Please learn to read: the claim was that when I state why I reject
other God's, you will cite that as your reason for rejecting mine. The
reply asserted by Mr. Roberts is, then, "I reject your God because
your God is real."
Oops, wrong. The implication, when you say something sanctimonious
like "Because my god is real," is that you are rejecting all others
because you have somehow determined that yours is "real" and theirs
are "not real." Unfortunately, you have *exactly* the same amount and
quality of evidence for the existence of your god as any other
believer has for theirs; therefore, the reason you reject all other
gods is because there is no amount or quality of evidence acceptable
to you that they are real, which is *exactly* the same reason the
atheist rejects yours. The reply asserted by Mr. Roberts is "I reject
your god because there is no objective, verifiable evidence it is any
more real than any other god." Now, if you'd like to present some
objective, verifiable evidence for the existence of your god, which
assumes you can even come up with an internally consistent definition
of the term "god" acceptable to everyone, I for one would be willing
to consider it. But you should be aware that so far, in the history
of the world, nobody has ever come up with any. It is unlikely you
will be the first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len Budney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
20 Oct 2004 06:04:50 PM |
|
|
(JessHC) wrote:
Oops, wrong. The implication, when you say something sanctimonious
like "Because my god is real," is that you are rejecting all others
because you have somehow determined that yours is "real" and theirs
are "not real."
Oops, another illiterate. Mr. Roberts did not require that my reason
be supported--or even supportable, let alone correct. He stated
without qualification that my reason for disbelieving in Odin is his
reason for disbelieving in Yahweh.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
21 Oct 2004 10:11:43 AM |
|
|
(Len Budney) wrote in message news:<9213c87c.0410201504.2611ea32@posting.google.com>...
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote:
Oops, wrong. The implication, when you say something sanctimonious
like "Because my god is real," is that you are rejecting all others
because you have somehow determined that yours is "real" and theirs
are "not real."
Oops, another illiterate. Mr. Roberts did not require that my reason
be supported--or even supportable, let alone correct. He stated
without qualification that my reason for disbelieving in Odin is his
reason for disbelieving in Yahweh.
It's funny you keep accusing people of illiteracy, when simple reading
seems so difficult for you. Merely saying "Because my god is real"
does not explicity state why you reject other gods (although it does
imply why), nor does it imply an understanding of why you dismiss
other gods. Other gods may also be real; claiming the reality of your
god as basis for the rejection of other gods is meaningless if other
gods are real. Let's say, for example, I claim Odin is real; what is
your basis for rejecting him, if my claim is correct? Is it because,
while Odin is real, he just isn't your cup of tea? Or do you reject
him because you don't think he's real?
Trying reading slowly. Go ahead, move your lips. "When you
understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will
understand why I dismiss yours." It's extraordinarily
straightforward. You don't understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods but are pretending you do, which isn't a surprize.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 10:26:24 AM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Len Budney" <lbudney@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9213c87c.0410190656.4ff0244f@posting.google.com...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
I'll bite back: Prove it.
Better still, prove it stating your assumptions up front - ie the set of
a priori propoitions on which your argument depends that are *not*
likely to be made by a sophisticated atheist (unless you are claiming
that there is a clear path of reasoning from the atheist position to yours).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 02:45:37 PM |
|
|
(Len Budney) wrote in message news:<9213c87c.0410190656.4ff0244f@posting.google.com>...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
Did you bother to read the quote? The theist always believes his god
is real and everybody else's is fake. Get it now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 03:04:59 PM |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2004 12:45:37 -0700, (JessHC) wrote:
lbudney@pobox.com (Len Budney) wrote in message news:<9213c87c.0410190656.4ff0244f@posting.google.com>...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
Did you bother to read the quote? The theist always believes his god
is real and everybody else's is fake. Get it now?
And what is worse they imagine that it is real for everybody else too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len Budney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 09:19:27 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
And what is worse [theists] imagine that [God] is real for
everybody else too.
You need a dictionary. *If* something is real, it is real for
everyone. That's what reality is.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
20 Oct 2004 10:39:40 AM |
|
|
(Len Budney) wrote in message news:<9213c87c.0410191819.1bee7bea@posting.google.com>...
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
And what is worse [theists] imagine that [God] is real for
everybody else too.
You need a dictionary. *If* something is real, it is real for
everyone. That's what reality is.
That's kind of the point.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Galt" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 09:39:14 PM |
|
|
Len Budney wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
And what is worse [theists] imagine that [God] is real for
everybody else too.
You need a dictionary. *If* something is real, it is real for
everyone. That's what reality is.
Regards,
Len.
Right, thus we can know for certain that god is not real.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 01:25:40 PM |
|
|
(Len Budney) wrote in message news:<9213c87c.0410190656.4ff0244f@posting.google.com>...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
The Shinto's think that Kami are real.
You think your God is real.
Do you have any evidence to say my
opinion that you both are wrong?
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len Budney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 07:11:33 PM |
|
|
(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
lbudney@pobox.com (Len Budney) wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"...When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
The Shinto's think that Kami are real.
You think your God is real.
Do you have any evidence to say my
opinion that you both are wrong?
You seem to have missed the humor here. Mr. Roberts makes the
universal assertion that he rejects the Judeo-Christian God for the
same reason that I reject the Hindu pantheon.
This bold claim is easily falsified, as I demonstrated: my reason
turns out not to be his reason at all. Indeed, he really means that my
reason is his reason if and only if he happens to agree with my
reason. Which is a tautology, which of course makes his seemingly
profound statement quite shallow in reality. In fact he is neither
saying more nor less than, "Unless you agree with me, I will declare
you a dumbass."
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
20 Oct 2004 10:39:07 AM |
|
|
(Len Budney) wrote in message news:<9213c87c.0410191611.27eef24e@posting.google.com>...
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote:
(Len Budney) wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"...When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
The Shinto's think that Kami are real.
You think your God is real.
Do you have any evidence to say my
opinion that you both are wrong?
You seem to have missed the humor here. Mr. Roberts makes the
universal assertion that he rejects the Judeo-Christian God for the
same reason that I reject the Hindu pantheon.
This bold claim is easily falsified, as I demonstrated: my reason
turns out not to be his reason at all. Indeed, he really means that my
reason is his reason if and only if he happens to agree with my
reason. Which is a tautology, which of course makes his seemingly
profound statement quite shallow in reality. In fact he is neither
saying more nor less than, "Unless you agree with me, I will declare
you a dumbass."
As I pointed out in another post, you seem to have completely
misunderstood Mr. Roberts' statement. He didn't ask, "why do you
think your god is real?" He asked, "why do you think all the others
are false?" You have not demonstrated that *only* yours alone can be
"real." In fact, in the bible, Yhwh makes several references to
"other gods."
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
20 Oct 2004 09:18:35 PM |
|
|
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:d58e3ac.0410200739.18efda86@posting.google.com...
lbudney@pobox.com (Len Budney) wrote in message
news:<9213c87c.0410191611.27eef24e@posting.google.com>...
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote:
lbudney@pobox.com (Len Budney) wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"...When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
The Shinto's think that Kami are real.
You think your God is real.
Do you have any evidence to say my
opinion that you both are wrong?
You seem to have missed the humor here. Mr. Roberts makes the
universal assertion that he rejects the Judeo-Christian God for the
same reason that I reject the Hindu pantheon.
This bold claim is easily falsified, as I demonstrated: my reason
turns out not to be his reason at all. Indeed, he really means that my
reason is his reason if and only if he happens to agree with my
reason. Which is a tautology, which of course makes his seemingly
profound statement quite shallow in reality. In fact he is neither
saying more nor less than, "Unless you agree with me, I will declare
you a dumbass."
As I pointed out in another post, you seem to have completely
misunderstood Mr. Roberts' statement. He didn't ask, "why do you
think your god is real?" He asked, "why do you think all the others
are false?" You have not demonstrated that *only* yours alone can be
"real." In fact, in the bible, Yhwh makes several references to
"other gods."
Hell, one of the Commandments(tm) does, also: "....no other gods before
me...."
Sounds more like a power play.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Len Budney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
21 Oct 2004 06:04:46 AM |
|
|
(JessHC) wrote:
As I pointed out in another post, you seem to have completely
misunderstood Mr. Roberts' statement. He didn't ask, "why do you
think your god is real?" He asked, "why do you think all the others
are false?"
Yes, I understood that clearly. Note that I never tried to say WHY I
thought my God was real; I stated only why I believe the others are
false--namely, that the true God says they are.
You have not demonstrated that *only* yours alone can be "real."
I don't have to demonstrate any such thing. I only have to state my
reason for disbelief in Zeus; Mr. Roberts assures me that it is also
his reason for disbelieving in Yahweh. I have not only shown that
Roberts's claim is manifestly false, but have pointed out that what
Roberts *really* meant was in fact tautological.
In fact, in the bible, Yhwh makes several references to "other gods."
I've heard about that. You mean the ones that "neither see, nor hear,
nor know." See? Yahweh *does* state that the other gods are not real.
Regards,
Len.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
21 Oct 2004 05:54:18 PM |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2004 17:11:33 -0700, (Len Budney) wrote:
You seem to have missed the humor here. Mr. Roberts makes the
universal assertion that he rejects the Judeo-Christian God for the
same reason that I reject the Hindu pantheon.
This bold claim is easily falsified, as I demonstrated:
Perhaps you would care to repeat the exercise; I am sure we would all
like to see your rebuttal.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
21 Oct 2004 06:05:02 PM |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2004 17:11:33 -0700, (Len Budney) wrote:
You seem to have missed the humor here. Mr. Roberts makes the
universal assertion that he rejects the Judeo-Christian God for the
same reason that I reject the Hindu pantheon.
This bold claim is easily falsified, as I demonstrated: my reason
turns out not to be his reason at all. Indeed, he really means that my
reason is his reason if and only if he happens to agree with my
reason. Which is a tautology, which of course makes his seemingly
profound statement quite shallow in reality. In fact he is neither
saying more nor less than, "Unless you agree with me, I will declare
you a dumbass."
I find it rather amusing, how often sophistry, and arguments from
semantics, are so often followed by insults.
....Often,in the same breath.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
20 Oct 2004 02:19:20 PM |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2004 17:11:33 -0700, (Len Budney) wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote:
(Len Budney) wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"...When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
The Shinto's think that Kami are real.
You think your God is real.
Do you have any evidence to say my
opinion that you both are wrong?
You seem to have missed the humor here. Mr. Roberts makes the
universal assertion that he rejects the Judeo-Christian God for the
same reason that I reject the Hindu pantheon.
This bold claim is easily falsified, as I demonstrated: my reason
turns out not to be his reason at all.
You reject other gods because you have no reason to consider them
real.
Indeed, he really means that my
reason is his reason if and only if he happens to agree with my
reason.
He does agree with your reason for rejecting the other gods. You have
merely added the step in which you believe in a god, but you have
given no objective reason to believe your god is more real than the
others.
Which is a tautology, which of course makes his seemingly
profound statement quite shallow in reality. In fact he is neither
saying more nor less than, "Unless you agree with me, I will declare
you a dumbass."
Except that he did not say that at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 12:34:07 PM |
|
|
Len Budney wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
Can you demonstrate that your god is real while all other gods are imaginary?
(And please, no math jokes.)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all power, legislative,
executive, and judicial in the same hands...
may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny."
- James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Socialism is a Mental Disease" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
19 Oct 2004 10:27:33 AM |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2004 07:56:04 -0700, (Len Budney) wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
All gods are real according to folowers. It's a very low bar, I'm
afraid...
--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: The Cartoon Reality Of Atheism |
21 Oct 2004 05:23:16 PM |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2004 07:56:04 -0700, (Len Budney) wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I'll bite: "Because my God is real."
So you know that your god is real, and that all others are false.
Interesting. But it does rather beg the question; don't you think?
The question of course being: How do you *know* that, exactly?
You see. Steven Roberts was not addressing why you believe in your
god, but rather, why you do *not believe in the others.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
