| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2006 11:42:53 AM |
| Object: |
THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/10/there-is-no-god-and-you-know-it.php
There is No God (And You Know It)
by Sam Harris
Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will
rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring
at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at
most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that
govern the lives of six billion human beings.
The same statistics also suggest that this girl's parents believe --
at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is
watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is
it good that they believe this?
No.
The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a
philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal
to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the
obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be
observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It
carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is,
moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.
It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a
non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words
for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise,
"atheism" is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing
more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of
religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the
260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who
claim to "never doubt the existence of God" should be obliged to
present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence,
given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in
the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our
situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious
as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her
qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without
pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what
passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos
and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance
is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the
stakes were not so high.
Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane
Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all
their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It
is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the
moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and
compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste
to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and
women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only
to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good
men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist
has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their
lives in the company of an imaginary friend.
Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm "of biblical
proportions" would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the
ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the
light of science. Advance warning of Katrina's path was wrested from
mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God
told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content
to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn't have known that
a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first
gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The
Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina's survivors
claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.
As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand
Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can
be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the
Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact
of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men
regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word.
It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his
faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through
God's grace.
Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of
the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is
for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving
God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he
refuses to cloak the reality of the world's suffering in a cloying
fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how
precious life is -- and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of
human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness
for no good reason at all.
Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not
responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the
claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other
way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is
the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it
solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most
egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either
impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following
pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality.
But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the
faithful use to establish God's goodness in the first place. And any
God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay
marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as
inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely
unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.
There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most
reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard
Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and
Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no
different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to
take the profundity of the world's suffering at face value. It is
terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly
terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That
so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to
religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious
diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and
intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the
atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in
touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy
life of his neighbors.
This is an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto, to be published at
www.truthdig.com in December.
.
|
|
| User: "Victor Velazquez" |
|
| Title: Re: THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
07 Oct 2006 03:30:19 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <trumpeting_away@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1160221373.770185.91680@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/10/there-is-no-god-and-you-know-it.php
It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a
non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words
for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise,
"atheism" is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing
more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of
religious dogma.
Good point, Trumpy. Thanks for passing this along!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
07 Oct 2006 07:46:55 PM |
|
|
On 7 Oct 2006 04:42:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<trumpeting_away@lycos.com> wrote:
Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will
rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring
at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at
most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that
govern the lives of six billion human beings.
Which atrocity is nothing compared to not saving someone from being
tortured beyond all understanding forever and ever without hope of
parole for the crime of being fooled.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Tingle" |
|
| Title: Re: THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
08 Oct 2006 07:06:49 PM |
|
|
On 7 Oct 2006 04:42:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<trumpeting_away@lycos.com> wrote:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/10/there-is-no-god-and-you-know-it.php
There is No God (And You Know It)
by Sam Harris
Who's book "The End of Faith" I highly recommend, by the way. Some of
the criticisms that have been levied against it were seemingly made by
careless readers. Harris is consistent, logical, and persuasive in his
argument that blind faith is the only true faith, and that blind faith
is bad for all of us. Kind of depressing ala Jared Diamond's
"Collapse".
By the way, I'm not an atheist, nor do I play one on TV. I feel
atheists overstate their case. They accept the burden of proving a
negative, and that's a risky thing to do. I stand proudly and
defiantly agnostic.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Hurkle Beast" |
|
| Title: Re: THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
09 Oct 2006 06:57:15 PM |
|
|
"Jack Tingle" <wjtingle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jpiii21oaobq89m81kt30345nqes56egja@4ax.com...
On 7 Oct 2006 04:42:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<trumpeting_away@lycos.com> wrote:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/10/there-is-no-god-and-you-kn
ow-it.php
There is No God (And You Know It)
by Sam Harris
Who's book "The End of Faith" I highly recommend, by the way. Some
of
the criticisms that have been levied against it were seemingly made
by
careless readers. Harris is consistent, logical, and persuasive in
his
argument that blind faith is the only true faith, and that blind
faith
is bad for all of us. Kind of depressing ala Jared Diamond's
"Collapse".
By the way, I'm not an atheist, nor do I play one on TV. I feel
atheists overstate their case.
I haven't seen anyone use the phrase "overstate their case" properly
for many years. The only ones who use it are pseudointellectuals, who
likely have no understanding of what they're saying at all.
They accept the burden of proving a negative, and that's a risky
thing to do.
You're full of *****. SOME atheists will foolishly attempt to prove a
negative, but most of us have more sense. The fact is, there is no
god. If you want to claim that there is one, then supply some
evidence. Otherwise, ***** off.
I stand proudly and defiantly agnostic.
I don't know who you think you're "defying", but all you're really
doing is refusing to admit that you know there is no god. You do more
for theists' claims, than anyone else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis L. McKiernan" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
09 Oct 2006 09:07:23 PM |
|
|
Consider the following two questions:
1) Why is it you believe there is a god?
2) Why is it you believe there is no god?
Each of these questions have many sub questions, but I'd like to
concentrate on just those two for now.
I think in the first case, the belief in a god or gods usually comes
about through indoctrination via someone who claims it to be true. For
example, in the madrases, children are taught the Quran and they are
literally brainwashed by interminable repetition of the passages.
I believe this is true in many of then fundamentalists religious sects,
be they Islamic, Christian, or whatever.
What about the flip side? Are most of those who believe there is(are)
no god(s) also indoctrinated? Less so, I think, than in the other case,
though I could be mistaken.
In both cases, there are those who come to their beliefs on their own.
I do think that those who question, who probe, who look for logical
answers are less likely to believe in god(s), though many of those
simply say "I don't know." Likewise, I think that those who do not
question what they've been taught, or do not look for logical answers
are more likely to believe in god(s).
In my opinion, education and science tends to drive a person farther
away from many of the original attributions of god(s).
The existence of the universe is often cited as the reason for believing
in god(s), yet virtual particles popping into and out of nothingness
(mathematically proven, by the way) demonstrates that a particle with
enough energy could have popped into existence and BIG BANG!
Often, people say that everything has to have had a beginning, and
without god(s) the universe couldn't have been. But then that leads to
what was god(s)'s beginning? He was ever here is often the answer, but
then the flip side is that the conditions for creation of the virtual
particle (see above) were ever here, hence no god(s) needed.
Where is the proof of god(s)?
Where is the proof of no god(s)?
I think neither side can put a convincing proof forth one way or the
other, hence both sides must be going on opinion alone (whose opinion?
why the opinions of those who indoctrinated them, or those they came to
on their own).
However, after questions 1) & 2) above, believers in god(s) begin to
attribute all sorts of thing to their god(s): ranging from minor
wizardries to the god(s) being all-seeing, all-loving, all-powerful.
Me, I think that once you delve into questions 1 & 2 above, all else is
speculation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Victor Velazquez" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 06:35:36 PM |
|
|
"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message news:fSyWg.232899$QM6.158997@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Consider the following two questions:
1) Why is it you believe there is a god?
2) Why is it you believe there is no god?
No offense, but #2 is kind of a goofy question. No one believes there is no
god, they just don't find the case that there is one to be at all
compelling. You might feel similarly about my asking you to explain why you
don't believe in The Green Lantern. Although I may just be taking issue
with the use of the word "belief" since, to me, it most often implies
knowing something when you have no concrete reason to.
As to #1 there are probably two answers that would be found most often among
respondents who do believe: "it's how I was raised" and/or "the idea of God
feels right." This guess is based solely on my having believed lots of
things in my lifetime (just none as out there as God or alien abductions or
WTC conspiracies). IMO, anyone who claims to have been convinced to believe
in God (or alien abductions or WTC conspiracies) is full of crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis L. McKiernan" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 07:02:54 PM |
|
|
Victor Velazquez wrote:
"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message news:fSyWg.232899$QM6.158997@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Consider the following two questions:
1) Why is it you believe there is a god?
2) Why is it you believe there is no god?
No offense, but #2 is kind of a goofy question.
I was simply taking the flip side of the first question.
No one believes there is no god, they just don't find the case that there is one to be at all
compelling. You might feel similarly about my asking you to explain why you
don't believe in The Green Lantern.
Ah, good old GL, one of my favorites. And I do see him often, on the
Boomerang channel on DirecTV, when they show the reruns of the Justice
League.
Although I may just be taking issue with the use of the word "belief" since, to me, it most often implies
knowing something when you have no concrete reason to.
Probably I should have asked "Why do you think there is no _evidence_
for the belief in god(s)?"
And ... "Why do you think there _is_ evidence for the belief in god(s).?"
As to #1 there are probably two answers that would be found most often among
respondents who do believe: "it's how I was raised" and/or "the idea of God
feels right." This guess is based solely on my having believed lots of
things in my lifetime (just none as out there as God or alien abductions or
WTC conspiracies). IMO, anyone who claims to have been convinced to believe
in God (or alien abductions or WTC conspiracies) is full of crap.
Yep. That's what I think as well, even though there are people who
claim they have been abducted by aliens, while others claim to to know
there was a WTC conspiracy.
But as to the Green Lantern, why, man, don't you believe the evidence
before you on Boomerang? Besides, there are those illustrated books
_showing_ that there is a Green Lantern. Likewise, illustrated books on
Christianity, Judaism, but, sorry, there are no illustrations of
Muhammad (except for the Danish ones), cave drawings of animism,
illustrations of witchcraft, pictures of Satan, Baal, etc., and Ra,
Zeus, Thor, and tattoos on various tribsmen, and, and... I mean, walk
into any bookstore and there you'll find lots of "evidence" (little of
it experimental producing provable results, I think).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Victor Velazquez" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 09:06:34 PM |
|
|
"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message news:y7SWg.240336$QM6.83189@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Victor Velazquez wrote:
"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
news:fSyWg.232899$QM6.158997@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Consider the following two questions:
1) Why is it you believe there is a god?
2) Why is it you believe there is no god?
No offense, but #2 is kind of a goofy question.
I was simply taking the flip side of the first question.
Oh I know, it just seems like a false dichotomy is all. I mean, I no more
believe there isn't a god than I believe that flying monkeys will not be
flying out of my butt. It's not belief so much as a simple "duh."
No one believes there is no god, they just don't find the case that there
is one to be at all compelling. You might feel similarly about my asking
you to explain why you don't believe in The Green Lantern.
Ah, good old GL, one of my favorites. And I do see him often, on the
Boomerang channel on DirecTV, when they show the reruns of the Justice
League.
I do love a character who's power stems from exercising his willpower. He's
the ultimate in faith-based superheroes (well, there is that other Shi'ar
mohawk dude...).
Although I may just be taking issue with the use of the word "belief"
since, to me, it most often implies knowing something when you have no
concrete reason to.
Probably I should have asked "Why do you think there is no _evidence_ for
the belief in god(s)?"
But no one has to *think* there isn't any compelling evidence, there just
isn't any. All of the evidence of all the gods in all the history of the
world is still *****-poor evidence of the supernatural. This is why I take
issue with attempts at "conversion" (one way or the other); either you feel
the presence of god, in which case your belief is understandable (given the
constraints of your socialization), or you don't feel it.
And ... "Why do you think there _is_ evidence for the belief in god(s).?"
As to #1 there are probably two answers that would be found most often
among respondents who do believe: "it's how I was raised" and/or "the
idea of God feels right." This guess is based solely on my having
believed lots of things in my lifetime (just none as out there as God or
alien abductions or WTC conspiracies). IMO, anyone who claims to have
been convinced to believe in God (or alien abductions or WTC
conspiracies) is full of crap.
Yep. That's what I think as well, even though there are people who claim
they have been abducted by aliens, while others claim to to know there was
a WTC conspiracy.
But as to the Green Lantern, why, man, don't you believe the evidence
before you on Boomerang? Besides, there are those illustrated books
_showing_ that there is a Green Lantern. Likewise, illustrated books on
Christianity, Judaism, but, sorry, there are no illustrations of Muhammad
(except for the Danish ones), cave drawings of animism, illustrations of
witchcraft, pictures of Satan, Baal, etc., and Ra, Zeus, Thor, and tattoos
on various tribsmen, and, and... I mean, walk into any bookstore and
there you'll find lots of "evidence" (little of it experimental producing
provable results, I think).
Words and drawings are evidence, sure, but, in the case of religion, they
aren't in the least bit compelling. Nothing is going to sway a person one
way or the other unless they already feel there is a god (or gods) or they
were taught there is/are and never questioned it (or, more likely, both).
The problem of religious socialization will take care of itself as societies
in general become more and more secular and, in so doing, offer a better
life than those that adhere to religious conformity. The feeling of
religion, however, seems to be a genetic bugaboo ingrained in the species.
At least, I can't think of any other way to explain it's staying power.
BTW, my seven-year-old just this week concluded that Santa Claus, et al,
were mythical. She actually used that word! I couldn't be prouder (and
I've never questioned her beliefs, nor supported them, preferring to see if
she figured it out on her own). In her case, she did have compelling
evidence for their existence in that everyone she trusted told her they did
exist. That she has decided to reject the adults in her life (on this
occasion, at least), gives me hope for the future of humanity. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis L. McKiernan" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 09:55:21 PM |
|
|
Victor Velazquez wrote:
...<snip>...
either you feel
the presence of god, in which case your belief is understandable (given the
constraints of your socialization), or you don't feel it.
...<'nother snip>
The feeling of
religion, however, seems to be a genetic bugaboo ingrained in the species.
At least, I can't think of any other way to explain it's staying power.
...<last snip>...
It could be that the so-called "god module" (part of the brain) is
perhaps significantly more active in some humans as opposed to others (I
am omitting the schizophrenics and other mental patients who "hear" god
speaking to them; I am also omitting the scam artists who use religion
to make a living, the ones, that is, who they themselves don't believe a
word of it; I'll also omit the desperate, who reach out to some god in
their hour of need as if clutching at a straw). Maybe I should include
"true believers" who foster religion as a means of making a living; it
could be they have effectively brainwashed themselves.
And congratulations to your daughter for penetrating the myth of Santa
Clause (for whom, I think, there is a great deal of "evidence" to the
contrary).
Me, I still believe in Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, the Flash,
Wonder Woman, Hawk Girl, and Jon Jonz (Jonzz?). And then there's
Aquaman and Dr. Fate and ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
09 Oct 2006 10:52:35 PM |
|
|
: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net>
: 1) Why is it you believe there is a god?
: 2) Why is it you believe there is no god?
(3) Why should I care if there is a god?
: I think neither side can put a convincing proof forth one way or the
: other, hence both sides must be going on opinion alone (whose opinion?
There are only two sides? Do you have convincing proof there are only two?
There are many, many things for which I don't have "convincing proof"
of existance or non-existance. Shrug.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 01:21:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:52:35 GMT, (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
: 1) Why is it you believe there is a god?
: 2) Why is it you believe there is no god?
(3) Why should I care if there is a god?
Because God so loved the world that He saved a few people from the
peace of dying so that those people can watch the vast majority of
people being tortured forever and ever without hope of parole for the
crime of being fooled.
There are other religions - which if they are true give similar
advantages to practitioners.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 02:46:22 PM |
|
|
:: (3) Why should I care if there is a god?
: Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
: Because God so loved the world that He saved a few people from the
: peace of dying so that those people can watch the vast majority of
: people being tortured forever and ever without hope of parole for the
: crime of being fooled.
Which is an interesting point. Pascal's wager and all.
You crank up the size of the carrot/stick to *make* it matter.
Yet... at the same time you have to multiply that by the probability
of an accurate prediction of consequences. So that's only half of
the "why should I care". The other half is traditionally omitted
in such discussions, and it's the crucial bit.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexey Romanov" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 06:13:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:46:22 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
:: (3) Why should I care if there is a god?
: Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
: Because God so loved the world that He saved a few people from the
: peace of dying so that those people can watch the vast majority of
: people being tortured forever and ever without hope of parole for the
: crime of being fooled.
Which is an interesting point. Pascal's wager and all.
You crank up the size of the carrot/stick to *make* it matter.
Yet... at the same time you have to multiply that by the probability
of an accurate prediction of consequences. So that's only half of
the "why should I care". The other half is traditionally omitted
in such discussions, and it's the crucial bit.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
Even worse question is "Why should I take _your_ religion's wager, and not
the Muslim, or some African tribe's I've never heard about? And no, you
can't do all at the same time."
--
Alexey Romanov
"This is a crime so sneaky and so subtle, even I don't know if I
am actually committing it!"
Freefall <http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff800/fv00739.htm>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis L. McKiernan" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
09 Oct 2006 11:18:55 PM |
|
|
Wayne Throop wrote:
: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net>
: 1) Why is it you believe there is a god?
: 2) Why is it you believe there is no god?
(3) Why should I care if there is a god?
This, I believe, is one of the subquestions spring forth from 1 &/or 2,
for, I stated in my original posting, there are many sub questions
falling under those first two.
I will add to your proposition: (4) Why should I care if there is _no_ god?
So, now we have four questions on the board, two which I think are
prime, and two which follow on.
BTW, my only reason for posting 1 & 2 is that the primary thrust of
discussions here seem to revolve around the existence or nonexistence.
There are of course, about a zillion (as we all know, a zillion is a
really big number) additional subquestions that cascade from 1 &/or 2.
: I think neither side can put a convincing proof forth one way or the
: other, hence both sides must be going on opinion alone (whose opinion?
There are only two sides? Do you have convincing proof there are only two?
There are many, many things for which I don't have "convincing proof"
of existence or non-existence.
Oh, I understand that, Wayne. Metaphysical questions never lead to
definitive answers (i.e., there's no way to know if one is right or
wrong). But asking the questions is what's interesting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Hurkle Beast" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 02:28:50 PM |
|
|
"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net> wrote
in message
news:zNAWg.233651$QM6.37855@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Wayne Throop wrote:
[snip]
: I think neither side can put a convincing proof forth one way or
the
: other, hence both sides must be going on opinion alone (whose
opinion?
"convincing proof"? Do you mean "convincing evidence", or something
else? The evidence that exists, strongly favors atheism.
There are only two sides? Do you have convincing proof there are
only two?
There are many, many things for which I don't have "convincing
proof"
of existence or non-existence.
Oh, I understand that, Wayne. Metaphysical questions never lead to
definitive answers (i.e., there's no way to know if one is right or
wrong). But asking the questions is what's interesting.
Actually, I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds your questions
rather boring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis L. McKiernan" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 03:26:45 PM |
|
|
The Hurkle Beast wrote:
Actually, I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds your questions
rather boring.
As a writer, I am usually interested in the responses to such
fundamental (no pun intended) questions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Hurkle Beast" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 03:31:14 PM |
|
|
"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net> wrote
in message
news:VYOWg.239088$QM6.156831@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The Hurkle Beast wrote:
Actually, I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds your questions
rather boring.
As a writer, I am usually interested in the responses to such
fundamental (no pun intended) questions.
What sort of writer? See, I find that far more interesting than
useless metaphysical tripe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis L. McKiernan" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 03:40:52 PM |
|
|
The Hurkle Beast wrote:
"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net> wrote
in message
news:VYOWg.239088$QM6.156831@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The Hurkle Beast wrote:
Actually, I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds your questions
rather boring.
As a writer, I am usually interested in the responses to such
fundamental (no pun intended) questions.
What sort of writer? See, I find that far more interesting than
useless metaphysical tripe.
SF/fantasy. Look me up on Amazon.com or BN.com, or simply google my name.
BS (U of Mo) & MS (Duke) in Electrical engineering. 31 years as a
member of Bell Labs: ABM defense systems followed by software
engineering and then think tank activities. Began writing in 1978 after
being run over by a car during an enduro.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis L. McKiernan" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 03:30:21 PM |
|
|
Dennis L. McKiernan wrote:
The Hurkle Beast wrote:
Actually, I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds your questions
rather boring.
As a writer, I am usually interested in the responses to such
fundamental (no pun intended) questions.
PS: And this thread somehow caught my fancy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
09 Oct 2006 11:33:26 PM |
|
|
: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net>
: I will add to your proposition: (4) Why should I care if there is _no_
: god? So, now we have four questions on the board, two which I think
: are prime, and two which follow on.
Simply rephrase it. Why care whether there's a god.
And it is the prime question before you even worry about the other two.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 01:31:04 AM |
|
|
"Wayne Throop" <> wrote in message
news:1160436806@sheol.org...
: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net>
: I will add to your proposition: (4) Why should I care if there is _no_
: god? So, now we have four questions on the board, two which I think
: are prime, and two which follow on.
Simply rephrase it. Why care whether there's a god.
And it is the prime question before you even worry about the other two.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
What the hell is this? It's very simple: There exists deity, or there is no
deity. Why play (mental) 'games'? The theist since the very first day has
said that there *is* a 'God' but never proved that to be true. Since that
original assertion, *every* single theist on planet earth has failed
miserably to prove that 'God' is nothing more than make-believe. But that
doesn't stop the theist from making up stories about how 'God' talks to
them, likes this or that, dislikes this or that; that he never even had a
'beginning', and the rest of their cockamamie assertions. Face it. There is
no 'God'. It's pointless to even *pretend* there is one. It does no one any
'real' good ('Jesus Camp' anyone?). So why continue on with the charade?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 02:03:42 AM |
|
|
: "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
: What the hell is this? It's very simple: There exists deity, or there is no
: deity. Why play (mental) 'games'?
Resource allocation. You may call it a "game", and
you're free to squander your resources as you wish.
But I don't have to.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis L. McKiernan" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 02:08:41 PM |
|
|
Wayne Throop wrote:
: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net>
: I will add to your proposition: (4) Why should I care if there is _no_
: god? So, now we have four questions on the board, two which I think
: are prime, and two which follow on.
Simply rephrase it. Why care whether there's a god.
And it is the prime question before you even worry about the other two.
Or, to rephrase it once again, Wayne:
God? Hmm ... Should I care?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
10 Oct 2006 01:19:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:07:23 GMT, "Dennis L. McKiernan"
<dlmck@bogus-subdomain.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Consider the following two questions:
1) Why is it you believe there is a god?
2) Why is it you believe there is no god?
I like to expand on this a bit:
3) Why is it you believe that your religion has the correct
understanding of god?
4) Why are there so many religions?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Bednorz" |
|
| Title: Re: god/no god |
09 Oct 2006 11:13:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:07:23 GMT, Dennis L. McKiernan wrote:
Consider the following two questions:
1) Why is it you believe there is a god?
*Somebody's* out to get me.
--
SF at Project Gutenberg: <http://thethunderchild.com/Books/OutofCopyright.html>
Baen Free Online SciFi: <http://www.baen.com/library/>
Baen Free SciFi CDs <http://files.plebian.net/baencd/>
SciFi.com classic/original: <http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/archive.html>
Free SF samples from Baen and Tor: <http://www.webscription.net/catalog.asp>
More links: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the best, Joe Bednorz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Tingle" |
|
| Title: Re: THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
09 Oct 2006 09:41:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:57:15 -0500, "The Hurkle Beast"
<hurkle@ameritech.net> wrote:
"Jack Tingle" <wjtingle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jpiii21oaobq89m81kt30345nqes56egja@4ax.com...
On 7 Oct 2006 04:42:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<trumpeting_away@lycos.com> wrote:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/10/there-is-no-god-and-you-kn
ow-it.php
There is No God (And You Know It)
by Sam Harris
Who's book "The End of Faith" I highly recommend, by the way. Some
of
the criticisms that have been levied against it were seemingly made
by
careless readers. Harris is consistent, logical, and persuasive in
his
argument that blind faith is the only true faith, and that blind
faith
is bad for all of us. Kind of depressing ala Jared Diamond's
"Collapse".
By the way, I'm not an atheist, nor do I play one on TV. I feel
atheists overstate their case.
I haven't seen anyone use the phrase "overstate their case" properly
for many years. The only ones who use it are pseudointellectuals, who
likely have no understanding of what they're saying at all.
Let's see. You're an atheist and you claim flatly there is no God (see
below). I admit, the theists suffer from severe lack of evidence, but
there is a phenomenon of some kind involved in theism, even if it's
mass hallucination or some miswiring of the average human brain. Your
only evidence is that your opponents don't have any convincing
evidence. That seems to be an overstatement of the case for no god.
They accept the burden of proving a negative, and that's a risky
thing to do.
You're full of *****. SOME atheists will foolishly attempt to prove a
negative, but most of us have more sense. The fact is, there is no
god. If you want to claim that there is one, then supply some
evidence. Otherwise, ***** off.
I don't want claim there is (or is not) a god. That's what agnostic
means.
I'm glad you've never attempted to prove a negative. While it's not
impossible, it is very difficult. The word atheist, though implies an
opinion. You've stated as a fact (without proof) that there is no god.
For you, that's an axiom, I guess.
I stand proudly and defiantly agnostic.
I don't know who you think you're "defying", but all you're really
doing is refusing to admit that you know there is no god. You do more
for theists' claims, than anyone else.
Wow! You need to loosen up. That was intended as humor. Sorry it
didn't work for you.
Regard,
Jack Tingle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
09 Oct 2006 10:03:40 PM |
|
|
<snip>
Let's see. You're an atheist and you claim flatly there is no God (see
below). I admit, the theists suffer from severe lack of evidence, but
there is a phenomenon of some kind involved in theism, even if it's
mass hallucination or some miswiring of the average human brain. Your
only evidence is that your opponents don't have any convincing
evidence. That seems to be an overstatement of the case for no god.
Russell's Teapots everybody, git chore Russell's Teapots here, ladies
and gen'l'men
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Tingle" |
|
| Title: Re: THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
10 Oct 2006 02:10:33 AM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2006 15:03:40 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Let's see. You're an atheist and you claim flatly there is no God (see
below). I admit, the theists suffer from severe lack of evidence, but
there is a phenomenon of some kind involved in theism, even if it's
mass hallucination or some miswiring of the average human brain. Your
only evidence is that your opponents don't have any convincing
evidence. That seems to be an overstatement of the case for no god.
Russell's Teapots everybody, git chore Russell's Teapots here, ladies
and gen'l'men
Not quite the same thing. I'm arguing for agnosticism, not a position
in either direction. The theists have the weight of opinion on their
side. That's not convincing, but it gets them a place at the table. As
I say, they could simply be deluded, but they are a force to be
reckoned with. (Which brings us full circle to Harris's book, which I
still recommend.)
The atheists certainly have no logical requirement to disprove the
theists' claims, which was Russel's point, but the game is already in
motion. The atheists can choose not to play. This agnostic is content
to watch.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
10 Oct 2006 05:15:11 PM |
|
|
Jack Tingle wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 15:03:40 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Let's see. You're an atheist and you claim flatly there is no God (see
below). I admit, the theists suffer from severe lack of evidence, but
there is a phenomenon of some kind involved in theism, even if it's
mass hallucination or some miswiring of the average human brain. Your
only evidence is that your opponents don't have any convincing
evidence. That seems to be an overstatement of the case for no god.
Russell's Teapots everybody, git chore Russell's Teapots here, ladies
and gen'l'men
Not quite the same thing. I'm arguing for agnosticism, not a position
in either direction. The theists have the weight of opinion on their
side. That's not convincing, but it gets them a place at the table. As
I say, they could simply be deluded, but they are a force to be
reckoned with. (Which brings us full circle to Harris's book, which I
still recommend.)
The atheists certainly have no logical requirement to disprove the
theists' claims, which was Russel's point, but the game is already in
motion. The atheists can choose not to play. This agnostic is content
to watch.
True, but tis better by far to do than to watch, for to stand on the
bylines and observe a conflict this serious, rather than doing the
right thing, and challenging religious oppression and intolerance, is
inexcusable, and while I'm sure you do challenge these when they occur,
one needs also to challenge the root cause of this suffering - religion
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Regards,
Jack Tingle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT |
10 Oct 2006 01:24:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:10:33 -0400, Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Not quite the same thing. I'm arguing for agnosticism, not a position
in either direction. The theists have the weight of opinion on their
side.
Except that's not the position they care much about - what they care
about is that *their* god and their religion are correct. And there
is no majority religion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
