zamp@emphyrio.demon.co.uk wrote:

Del wrote:

zamp@emphyrio.demon.co.uk wrote:

<snip>

I would disagree that we have "faith". We have an expectation

based

on previous experiential data.

Exactly. "Confidence"

"Confidence: trust based on proven reliability; a conviction
borne of time-tested familiarity; a feeling that someone or
something will not fail or behave differently than it has in
the past"-- S. I. Hayakawa, Use The Right Word: Modern
guide to Synonyms and Related Words. Readers Digest Books
New york.1978

The reason, of course, Rick wants to call this "faith" is so
he can equate it with religious faith.

Yes...once again we find ourselves in the slippery world of
definitions, and once again I despair of *ever* finding a theist who
will actually debate reasonably with me.

Personally, I approach such debate as a defensive strategy
only. That is, in the face of anti-atheist slander or other
such attacks or lies, or when the theist position is used to
promote the enforcement of social policy by the use of
the police power of the government. The only exception
to this is if I am solicited to debate. That would include
any who _intentionally_ post to a.a.


I really am beginning to

think that the particular mind-set of theists is based on a

fundamental

neurological difference: like Humpty-Dumpty, they always try to
redefine things to mean what they think they ought to mean - and

these

aren't subtle differentiations of meaning, either, but wholesale
reinterpretations.

Going by what one finds in a.a. it would be hard to
arrive at any other conclusion. However, the theists
who post here are not a randomly selected cross
section of the whole group. Thus, scientifically
speaking, posters here cannot be representative of
theists in general, or do so only by some chance
that we could not calculate the odds of. I know
quite a few theists that I consider my friends and
none of them are like these people. They would
find these people just as offensive as you or I do.

I think there may be a deep-rooted misconception,

on the part of the theistically-susceptible mind, as to the

fundamental

pliability of the real world: a sort of apprehension that if one
*wishes* things to be different from reality, they will be,

regardless

of experience or evidence.

Wow. That is a very shrewd observation in my
opinion. It is something the great scientist Louis
Pasteur noticed, although he attributed it to humans
in general:

"I should like to see these profound words inscribed
on the threshold of all the temples of science: The
greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in
something because one wishes it to be so." - Louis Pasteur

If Pasteur is correct then what you've observed is
really the difference between those who resist this
"greatest derangement of the mind" and those who
give in to it, or even willingly embrace it.

<snip>

I'm gettin g to this a little late and you probably already know
this by now, but Rick will just blow off any questions that
are the least bit troubling to his agenda.

Yes. So it seems.

<snip>

The vast majority of atheists neither post t o this forum, nor

act

in

ways likely to draw attention to their atheism, so I would sug

gest

that your premise is faulty.

That too. Of course, implicit atheism is a lack of a belief in

gods.

But this does not prevent some atheists from going beyond that. But
that doesn't change the definition any more than if a Christian
becomes a nazi means that Christianity includes nazism.

I think this is another marker of the theist: the inability to

project

outside their own frame of reference even a little bit. "All

atheists

do X", "All atheists believe Y". They can't seem to comprehend *at
all* the notion that atheism is not a unified belief system. It's

like

a blind spot they have.

As you probably already know, there has been a concerted
effort by religious authorities to malign atheism throughout
the ages. This may be because atheism poses the greatest
threat to them--more so than even statanism. After all, even
satan believes in "God." In any event, they have been wildly
successful in reaching their goal. Many, if not the vast
majority, of Christians have never (knowingly) met an
atheist. So personally I'm not surprised that they buy
into the propaganda.

I think that sneering at, or being abusive to
those who don't agree with you is a waste of time and effort, but

I

can understand why the painful experi ences of some atheists have

led

them to such behaviour - although I can't condone it.

I attribut e very little of what goes on here to real life
experiences.
I've been posting here for 9 years and I attribute the bad humor

of

some here to what goes on here. Namely the invasion of a.a. by
the dregs of Christianity who are un bounded by any scruple in
their vicious and despicable slander

<pedantry> You know, I think it might qualify as libel ;-)

</pedantry>

Right. I just prefer the word "slander."

of atheists here. Usually it
is delivered in a smarmy and care-free tone, or insinuated, or
presumed to be proven fact. One need only look at some of the
subject headers in a.a. on any given day to get a taste of what I

mean.

Rather scarily, I think that some of the atheists here have more in
common with the theists than they might like to think.

Unfortunately it is not at all uncommon for two sides
in any disagreement to begin to resemble themselves,
over time. Also when one has refuted the same dumb
accusation 100 or more times, one tends to lose patience
when it comes up again. And saying nothing in response
implies a lack of disagreement. This, and the polarizing
effects, are something one must actively resist or almost
inevidibly become a victim of, over time.


The "You smell

bad!" school of argument is not one I'm comfortable with.

It is self indulgent, not to mention counter-productive.

I suppose I

just don't see the point of a slanging match. If you're reached that
stage, the meaning of the discussion, and of discussion per se, has
been lost, so why continue?

Right.

<snip>

I would suggest that
sneering and abuse are unwarranted under *any* circumstances,
regardless of what you can or cannot demonstrate.

Personally I would disagree, though I respect your position.
I would disagree *in this medium* because in the anarchy
that is alt.atheism social disaproval is about the only way to
exercise some sort of control on unethical behavior such as
wholesale lying, slander and character assassination. The
alternative: censorship I find a much worse. But other than
for this reason I would agree with you.

I take your point. However, I would prefer simply to withdraw from
debating with those who are clearly unable or unwilling to discuss

the

matters at hand cogently.

Personally, individually, I agree. As a collective reaction,
however, it would mean that atheists give up alt.atheism
to the invaders. Interesting to note that if you go back to
the start of alt.atheism, you find that from their very first
posts here, theists have questioned why alt.atheism
should exist at all.

I really don't care if someone tells lies
about me, unless it materially affects me in the real world.

In one sense, to entertain such things implies you
consider the person credible. But then it might not
be an issue of this persons credibility to you but to
other people, or to the honest & fair but casual reader.
The two schools of thought about how to treat lies
about ones self (other than lawsuits): One is to
vigorously deny them all and the other is to ignore
them all. I can't decide so I generally take it on a
case by case basis.

In that

event, I am fortunate enough to have the resources to take meaningful
action.

Thor forbid you should ever have to.

However, as has

been pointed out here countless times, it is not possible to

prove

gods do not exist,

Well, it is not possible to show that gods _of any
discription_ do not exist. It _is_ hypothetically possible
show that defined gods do not exist, such as the god
described in the Bible.

True.

any more than it is possible to prove that *anything* a
human being can conceive of does not exist.

If the geographic location is sufficiently constrained, it can
be possible to show that something doesn't exist.

You're quite right, assuming that the definition of the object
concerned is sufficiently crisp.

Oops! Yeah, that too.

The definitions of gods tend to be

notoriously vague, with lots of wiggle room (by necessity, I would
suggest).

I was just about to say "by necessity" too. Do brilliant
minds think alike or what?

Gods usually have intangibility as a fundamental attribute.

Almost any assigned attribute becomes a limitation
on a god. I think that is why so many assigned attributes
boil down to things humans are not and can't really
conceive of: all powerful, all knowing, etc.

It seems to me sometimes that theists think that this is an

advantage,

and that their special pleading on behalf of their god is, rather,

the

deliniation of a self-evident truth. Again, I think it's that basic
schism between our mind-sets that make some of these debates so
irritating. Ho hum.

Indeed.

Ciao

zamp@emphyrio.demon.co.uk wrote:

I take your point. However, I would prefer simply to withdraw

debating with those who are clearly unable or unwilling to discuss

matters at hand cogently. I really don't care if som eone tells

about me, unless it materially affects me in the real world. In

event, I am fortunate enough to have the resources to take

action.

However, as has

been pointed out here countless times, it i s not possible to

gods do not exist,

Well, it is not possible to show that gods _of any
discription_ do not exist. It _is_ hypothetically possible
show that defined gods do not exist, such as the god
described in the Bible.

No, its almost trivial to prove that god, as defined by major

cannot exist.

True.

any more than it is possible to prove that *anything* a
human being can conceive of does not exist.

If the geographic location is sufficiently constrained, it can
be possible to show that something doesn't exist.

You're quite right, assuming that the definition of the object
concerned is sufficiently crisp. The definitions of gods tend to

notoriously vague, with lots of wiggle room (by necessity, I would
suggest). Gods usually have intangibility as a fundamental

It seems to me sometimes that theists think that this is an

and that their special pleading on behalf of their god is, rather,

deliniation of a self-evident truth. Again, I think it's that

schism between our mind-sets that make some of these debates so
irritating. Ho hum.

Actualli, I find it he opposite.
God is rather readily defined.

The large majority of believers and orthodox theological
definitions of god are simple for most major religions.

Go is personal.
God has will and conciousness.
God is creator of all.

He is perfect in all respects.
He is omnipotent, all powerful.
He is the greatest imaginable thing.

From this we can derive sub-perfections, god is
perfect and omnipotent, thus he must alsd be
omni-benevolent,

and omniscient.

These over-arching claims are meant to cover any objection
and cover any good quality concievable, to be an open
ended definition that cannot be lessened or defeated
by coming up with new terms, new attributes, new claims.

It is a class of gods, maximalist, gods so great nothing
greater cabn be imagnined by definition.

The problem is, such overarching maximalist gods self
destruct.

If god knows all, is omniscient, he know everything that will happen
to teh smallest detail in any world he contemplates creating.

He must the, chose to create or not create that world and its

Anything he does create he creates in total detail, knowingly.

If there is evil in the world, god created that evil, knowing
in the world. There can be no free will even in principle where
god knowing creates all knowing its details and creates all
those details having considered theri future history.

Thus all evil is created by god.

Thus god is evil, since all evil comes from him.

Omnima levolence =/= omnibenevolence.

So this overarching definition of an entire class of gods
self destructs, as do any possible such gods., no matter
other lesser particulars, Yahweh vs Allah for example, or
questions of Jesus's divinity in relation to god.

It not only easy to disprove gods as defined,
its almost trivial.

--

When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!