| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2007 09:40:06 PM |
| Object: |
The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
The following is an interesting brief article written by Paul Copan. I
present it "as is" since I found it fascinating and worthy of reposting for
possible discussions on Usenet ng's (especially with all the atheists and
agnostics present).
May God bless,
Carl
website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
"The Presumptuousness of Atheism"
by Paul Copan
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the
theist."1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, there
is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, considers
the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for Santa
Claus on the same level.2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns
out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist
also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's
existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken
atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or
unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All
the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that
God exists."4
Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of
philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who
himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the
atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist"
in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's
existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist -
whether or not one has evidence against God's existence. What the atheist
fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God
does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial
of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's
claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God's
existence.
Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not
atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's existence
do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not
neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is
sufficient evidence against God's existence.
Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the
same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for
these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not
exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence,
which some atheists fail to see.
Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For
example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe - in light of
Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of
thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will
eventually die a heat death) - demonstrates that the cosmos has not always
been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of
absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a
cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the
question of the universe's origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the
universe - with complexly balanced conditions that seem tailored for life -
points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.
The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in
God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just cultural,
then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with
its sense of "oughtness," on strictly naturalistic terms. (Most people can
be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is
not simply cultural.) These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer
is being quite rational - not presumptuous - in embracing belief in God.
Paul Copan is a Ph. D. candidate in philosophy at Marquette University and
editor of the forthcoming Who Was Jesus? A Jewish-Christian Discussion
(Word, 1997).
NOTES
1Antony Flew, The Presumption of Atheism (London: Pemberton, 1976), 14.
2Michael Scriven, Primary Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 103.
3It is important to remember that we are trying to give arguments or good
reasons for God's existence - not "proofs," which imply a mathematical
certainty. All too often the atheist's criteria of acceptability are
unreasonably high. One who is genuinely seeking plausible reasons to believe
in God can certainly find them.
4Kai Nielsen, Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.
5Alvin Plantinga, "Reason and Belief in God," in Alvin Plantinga and
Nicholas Wolterstorff, eds., Faith and Rationality (Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 27.
.
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
17 Jun 2007 12:34:34 AM |
|
|
On Jun 17, 6:40 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The following is an interesting brief article written by Paul Copan. I
present it "as is" since I found it fascinating and worthy of reposting for
possible discussions on Usenet ng's (especially with all the atheists and
agnostics present).
May God bless,
Carl
website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
"The Presumptuousness of Atheism"
by Paul Copan
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the
theist."1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, there
is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, considers
the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for Santa
Claus on the same level.2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns
out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist
also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.
JERRY
Actually, the theist is the one affirming the supernatural. The
burden of proof lies with the theist. Also, it's nearly impossible to
prove the negative, which is one of the reasons why theists keep
trying to put the burden of proof on the atheist.
Carl's source
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's
existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken
atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or
unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All
the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that
God exists."4
JERRY
This is true. While theists cannot prove that God exists, likewise
there is no proof that there isn't some kind of deity, just not the
deity of the bible. No evidence either way. However, if you use
Occam's razor as a guideline, the most likely answer is that there is
no deity.
CARL's Source
Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of
philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who
himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the
atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist"
in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's
existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist -
JERRY
Occam's razor.
Carl's Source
whether or not one has evidence against God's existence.
JERRY
Sigh. There IS no evidence to support the case for a deity and
atheists are not obligated to prove the negative. As I've pointed out
before, it's the theists who are claiming the supernatural. The
burden of proof is entirely on them.
Carl's source
What the atheist
fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God
does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial
of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's
claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God's
existence.
JERRY
Again, the atheist is not making a claim of the supernatural. The
Atheist is not obligated to prove that god does not exist. What the
atheist says is "I see no evidence of a god, and until there is such
evidence, my assumption is that no such god does exist. This is
different from a "claim to know something."
Carl's source
Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not
atheism, is the logical presumption.
JERRY
Many thoughtful people might agree with you, but you are parsing here,
saying "No, you can't be atheists, you must either believe in my
invisible sky pixie or you must be unsure, like an agnostic. Its the
logical fallacy of the false dichotomy.
Carl's source
Even if arguments for God's existence
do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not
neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is
sufficient evidence against God's existence.
JERRY
This is your argument? "I can handle you believing or saying you
aren't sure but you can't say there is no god?" You gonna take your
ball and go home?
Carl's Source who is rapidly falling apart
Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the
same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for
these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not
exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence,
which some atheists fail to see.
JERRY
And the bumper sticker mentality finally makes it's appearance. Yes,
they are on the same level. The Christian claims the existence of a
god for the same reason that a child believes in Santa Claus or the
Easter Bunny. Faith in the existence based upon what someone else
says without evidence. Your parents tell you about the Easter Bunny
and Santa Claus and you believe in it because there is hope of reward
- gifts, chocolate, etc. The only difference for the Christian is
that they are hoping for an everlasting life in a Heaven and, for
most, punishment for those who disagree with them. Never minimize the
petty hatreds of the believer.
Carl's source
Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For
example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe - in light of
Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of
thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will
eventually die a heat death) - demonstrates that the cosmos has not always
been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of
absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a
cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the
question of the universe's origin.
JERRY
So, where is the creator of your Creator? According to your logic,
nothing pops into existence uncaused. If God created all this, what
created God? Do you see the flaw in your logic? Can you say
"argument from ignorance?"
Carl's source, weakening fast
Also, the fine-tunedness of the
universe - with complexly balanced conditions that seem tailored for life -
points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.
JERRY
So many points to answer just from that one stupid statement.
Anthropic principle. Let's assume that a mud puddle woke up and could
think. The mud puddle thinks, how perfect is this space, that only
life such as I could exist in it!
The truth is that natural selection shows that life adapts to the
environment, not the other way around. Change the environment and the
life on this planet would be very different.
As for an intelligent Designer, does that include gay animals? It's
documented. So, if you accept an intelligent designer, you have to
accept that homosexuality is normal and natural.
Finally, as a man living with a prostate problem, I can tell you that
NO intelligent designer would design male physiology in such a manner
to create the problems that exist with the human body.
Carl's source, drowning in his own stupidity and going down for the third time.
The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in
God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just cultural,
then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with
its sense of "oughtness," on strictly naturalistic terms. (Most people can
be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is
not simply cultural.) These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer
is being quite rational - not presumptuous - in embracing belief in God.
JERRY
So, let me get this straight: the existence of a simple concept like
"treat your neighbor like you want to be treated" is existence of
God? That's it? That's what you got? A simple concept that is
accepted by all cultures worldwide because its staggering in it's
simplicity and can be grasped by cultures that are vastly different?
You have to do much better than that to prove a case.
BTW, do you HAVE an original thought in your head, or are you so
stupid that you can only go out and find other people stuff to spam a
newsgroup with?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
18 Jun 2007 06:55:23 PM |
|
|
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182058474.688236.183920@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
BTW, do you HAVE an original thought in your head, or are you so
stupid that you can only go out and find other people stuff to spam a
newsgroup with?
Wise enough to know not to waste precious energy responding in kind to an
immature attempt at provocation like yours. Please let us know who the
person or persons were that held a gun to your head forcing you to read my
posts so we may inform law enforcement.
May God bless,
Carl
website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
19 Jun 2007 12:49:15 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 3:55 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
"rogue" <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182058474.688236.183920@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
BTW, do you HAVE an original thought in your head, or are you so
stupid that you can only go out and find other people stuff to spam a
newsgroup with?
Wise enough to know not to waste precious energy responding in kind to an
immature attempt at provocation like yours. Please let us know who the
person or persons were that held a gun to your head forcing you to read my
posts so we may inform law enforcement.
JERRY
Ok, perhaps it was a bit provocative. But you have to know, a Usenet
Newsgroup is not a church, not a congregation where you are attempting
to win any new converts, because it won't happen.
This is "Speaker's Corner," where anyone can put down a soapbox, stand
up on it and provide discourse.
I bring this up because you aren't providing any real discourse by
cutting and pasting other people's stuff, Carl. I would be more
interested in what YOU think than in what passes for thoughts from the
people whose work you "borrow."
I also find it amusing because theists for years now have accused me
of cutting and pasting arguments from other people but when
challenged, not a single one can show where I have stolen anything
from anyone. My work is strictly my own, with one exception: One
poster in alt.bible.errancy a few years ago put together a partial
collection of verses in the bible showing that the Second Coming was
supposed to happen 2000 years ago and didn't. I have apologized to
him for using his work and most of the time if I can remember his name
I also credit his work.
All other posts are mine, and if I use someone else's work, I use it
to illustrate my point, not make the point for me.
I just find it incredibly lazy to spam a newsgroup with someone else's
work,. It's like going to Speaker's Corner and dropping leaflets and
stepping back, so you can claim it's not your work if someone shows
the failure in the arguments to be logical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
19 Jun 2007 04:02:23 PM |
|
|
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182232155.243554.318250@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 3:55 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
"rogue" <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182058474.688236.183920@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
BTW, do you HAVE an original thought in your head, or are you so
stupid that you can only go out and find other people stuff to spam a
newsgroup with?
Wise enough to know not to waste precious energy responding in kind to an
immature attempt at provocation like yours. Please let us know who the
person or persons were that held a gun to your head forcing you to read
my
posts so we may inform law enforcement.
Ok, perhaps it was a bit provocative. But you have to know, a Usenet
Newsgroup is not a church, not a congregation where you are attempting
to win any new converts, because it won't happen.
The already converted attend church. Those who need to hear the gospel tend
to be outside the church setting which includes Usenet.
This is "Speaker's Corner," where anyone can put down a soapbox, stand
up on it and provide discourse.
Ahh..this is where your point fails. In a "Speaker's Corner" setting, it is
not necessarily limited to discourse. In fact, most "soapboxes" are
inhabited by speechmakers. However in true "Speaker's Corner" fashion, there
are people pontificating on soapboxes, lively debate among individuals &
groups, AND people passing out handbills, pamphlets, etc. written by
themselves as well as others. Taking all these true-to-life examples in
account, Usenet is indeed a place for me to post articles written by others
on topics I happen to agree with or feel appropriate for free issuance.
I bring this up because you aren't providing any real discourse by
cutting and pasting other people's stuff, Carl. I would be more
interested in what YOU think than in what passes for thoughts from the
people whose work you "borrow."
Since neither "Speaker's Corner" nor Usenet has not nor ever has been
limited to discourse, your point doesn't hold water. Since the ng's I post
on are unmoderated, then there is no limitations placed upon me for what I
can or cannot post just as there is no limitation on you for what you can or
cannot read.
I just find it incredibly lazy to spam a newsgroup with someone else's
work,. It's like going to Speaker's Corner and dropping leaflets and
stepping back, so you can claim it's not your work if someone shows
the failure in the arguments to be logical.
Again your analogy fails because posting a few articles a day doesn't
qualify as "spam" especially on an unmoderated newsgroup or newsgroups
especially where the topic of the ng is Christian in nature and the articles
posted are also Christian in subject matter. Now if I were posting hundreds
of articles on topics completely unrelated to the ng subject then that would
indeed be spam.
Again to properly use your "Speaker's Corner" analogy:
In such places (e.g. - ng's in general), people routinely offer pamphlets to
passers-by. Some accept them to only throw them away. Some refuse them. Some
accept them and read them. No one forced the pamphlets onto them.
Furthermore, if a proper distribution station is made available like one of
those free real estate guide boxes (e.g. - unmoderated ng's), then said
pamphlets would be available to anyone passing by at any time. Now if there
were a distribution point that one had to get permission to use beforehand,
like the cashier's station at a nearby pub for example (e.g. - moderated
ng), then one would have to abide by whatever set rules the management of
the establishment had in place.
The bottom line is my posting of articles written by others is perfectly
legitimate in unmoderated newsgroups and is a longstanding tradition of
sharing information. The discourse you attempt to corner me with is merely
one form of Usenet posts. If I feel the urge to respond to someone then it
is my perogative. No one can force me to engage in discourse, debate or
whatever if I don't care to. And similarly, no one can force me to read
anyone else's posts either.
So I understand what you are trying to say, but unfortunately the
limitations and conditions you seem to wish applied cannot be applied on
unmoderated Usenet newsgroups.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
May God bless,
Carl
website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
18 Jun 2007 02:48:19 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:34:34 -0700, rogue <rogue719@hotmail.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Jun 17, 6:40 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The following is an interesting brief article written by Paul Copan. I
present it "as is" since I found it fascinating and worthy of reposting for
possible discussions on Usenet ng's (especially with all the atheists and
agnostics present).
May God bless,
Carl
website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
"The Presumptuousness of Atheism"
by Paul Copan
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the
theist."1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, there
is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, considers
the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for Santa
Claus on the same level.2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns
out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist
also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.
JERRY
Actually, the theist is the one affirming the supernatural. The
burden of proof lies with the theist. Also, it's nearly impossible to
prove the negative, which is one of the reasons why theists keep
trying to put the burden of proof on the atheist.
Actually, it has been pretty well established that atheism is nothing
but arrogant intellectual dishonesty.
I some time ago came up with a pretty sound argument FOR God's
existence. The atheists I showed it to had no answers but to bluster,
"You haven't proved anything at all."
I proved that atheists are not intellectually honest.
For this short "proof" be sure to pick up my coming book,
"A Layman Studies the Bible" by John Weatherly
john w
Carl's source
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's
existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken
atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or
unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All
the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that
God exists."4
JERRY
This is true. While theists cannot prove that God exists, likewise
there is no proof that there isn't some kind of deity, just not the
deity of the bible. No evidence either way. However, if you use
Occam's razor as a guideline, the most likely answer is that there is
no deity.
CARL's Source
Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of
philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who
himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the
atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist"
in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's
existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist -
JERRY
Occam's razor.
Carl's Source
whether or not one has evidence against God's existence.
JERRY
Sigh. There IS no evidence to support the case for a deity and
atheists are not obligated to prove the negative. As I've pointed out
before, it's the theists who are claiming the supernatural. The
burden of proof is entirely on them.
Carl's source
What the atheist
fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God
does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial
of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's
claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God's
existence.
JERRY
Again, the atheist is not making a claim of the supernatural. The
Atheist is not obligated to prove that god does not exist. What the
atheist says is "I see no evidence of a god, and until there is such
evidence, my assumption is that no such god does exist. This is
different from a "claim to know something."
Carl's source
Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not
atheism, is the logical presumption.
JERRY
Many thoughtful people might agree with you, but you are parsing here,
saying "No, you can't be atheists, you must either believe in my
invisible sky pixie or you must be unsure, like an agnostic. Its the
logical fallacy of the false dichotomy.
Carl's source
Even if arguments for God's existence
do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not
neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is
sufficient evidence against God's existence.
JERRY
This is your argument? "I can handle you believing or saying you
aren't sure but you can't say there is no god?" You gonna take your
ball and go home?
Carl's Source who is rapidly falling apart
Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the
same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for
these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not
exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence,
which some atheists fail to see.
JERRY
And the bumper sticker mentality finally makes it's appearance. Yes,
they are on the same level. The Christian claims the existence of a
god for the same reason that a child believes in Santa Claus or the
Easter Bunny. Faith in the existence based upon what someone else
says without evidence. Your parents tell you about the Easter Bunny
and Santa Claus and you believe in it because there is hope of reward
- gifts, chocolate, etc. The only difference for the Christian is
that they are hoping for an everlasting life in a Heaven and, for
most, punishment for those who disagree with them. Never minimize the
petty hatreds of the believer.
Carl's source
Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For
example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe - in light of
Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of
thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will
eventually die a heat death) - demonstrates that the cosmos has not always
been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of
absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a
cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the
question of the universe's origin.
JERRY
So, where is the creator of your Creator? According to your logic,
nothing pops into existence uncaused. If God created all this, what
created God? Do you see the flaw in your logic? Can you say
"argument from ignorance?"
Carl's source, weakening fast
Also, the fine-tunedness of the
universe - with complexly balanced conditions that seem tailored for life -
points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.
JERRY
So many points to answer just from that one stupid statement.
Anthropic principle. Let's assume that a mud puddle woke up and could
think. The mud puddle thinks, how perfect is this space, that only
life such as I could exist in it!
The truth is that natural selection shows that life adapts to the
environment, not the other way around. Change the environment and the
life on this planet would be very different.
As for an intelligent Designer, does that include gay animals? It's
documented. So, if you accept an intelligent designer, you have to
accept that homosexuality is normal and natural.
Finally, as a man living with a prostate problem, I can tell you that
NO intelligent designer would design male physiology in such a manner
to create the problems that exist with the human body.
Carl's source, drowning in his own stupidity and going down for the third time.
The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in
God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just cultural,
then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with
its sense of "oughtness," on strictly naturalistic terms. (Most people can
be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is
not simply cultural.) These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer
is being quite rational - not presumptuous - in embracing belief in God.
JERRY
So, let me get this straight: the existence of a simple concept like
"treat your neighbor like you want to be treated" is existence of
God? That's it? That's what you got? A simple concept that is
accepted by all cultures worldwide because its staggering in it's
simplicity and can be grasped by cultures that are vastly different?
You have to do much better than that to prove a case.
BTW, do you HAVE an original thought in your head, or are you so
stupid that you can only go out and find other people stuff to spam a
newsgroup with?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
19 Jun 2007 12:42:10 AM |
|
|
On Jun 18, 11:48 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:34:34 -0700, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
=A9 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Jun 17, 6:40 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The following is an interesting brief article written by Paul Copan. I
present it "as is" since I found it fascinating and worthy of repostin=
g for
possible discussions on Usenet ng's (especially with all the atheists =
and
agnostics present).
May God bless,
Carl
website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
"The Presumptuousness of Atheism"
by Paul Copan
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the
theist."1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, =
there
is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, con=
siders
the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for =
Santa
Claus on the same level.2 However, the presumption of atheism actually=
turns
out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the athei=
st
also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate b=
elow.
JERRY
Actually, the theist is the one affirming the supernatural. The
burden of proof lies with the theist. Also, it's nearly impossible to
prove the negative, which is one of the reasons why theists keep
trying to put the burden of proof on the atheist.
jw
Actually, it has been pretty well established that atheism is nothing
but arrogant intellectual dishonesty.
JERRY
Really? Established by who? What was the argument that advanced this
establish of atheism as "arrogant intellectual dishonesty?" I'm kinda
curious. It seems to me that claiming the existence of an invisible
blue sky pixie on a total lack of evidence would be more
intellectually dishonest than not believing, but I'm willing to be
convinced.
jw
I some time ago came up with a pretty sound argument FOR God's
existence. The atheists I showed it to had no answers but to bluster,
"You haven't proved anything at all."
JERRY
Again, I'm curious. Wanna run that "pretty sound argument" past me?
I don't tend to bluster and I WILL show you the logical problems with
your argument if they exist. If there are no logical problems with
your claim, you have nothing to worry about, do you?
jw
I proved that atheists are not intellectually honest.
JERRY
Using what argument, pray tell?
jw
For this short "proof" be sure to pick up my coming book,
"A Layman Studies the Bible" by John Weatherly
JERRY
LOL. Getting into the Gasbag business, are you? Well John, I won't
be purchasing your book for the same reason I wouldn't purchase
Gastrich's: his many attempts at debate on Usenet demonstrated his
his lack of logic and inability to form coherent arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
19 Jun 2007 01:09:57 PM |
|
|
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182231730.136605.31060@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 18, 11:48 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:34:34 -0700, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
All right folks here it is you are all intellectually dishonest. Anyone that
claims that another must prove their beliefs are valid before they can be
valid is dishonest for they are valid for the person that believes them. We
all make choices we choose to believe or not to believe we choose to be
theistic or atheistic, both are a choice. Anyone who says they did not
choose the path they are following is either a liar or a fool. If you say
you did not choose it but you have given it, thought then you are a liar,
because thought indicates a choice. It is with thought that we come to
decide actions and it is through careful thought that we make the decisions
that are best for each of us. If you did not think about it and do not think
about it then you are a fool, taking an action or holding a belief without
thought means, you have not the ability to consider why you believe or do
not believe as you do. That is just scary, it is like when Bush said he only
thought about the things he thought about, that is a bit scary to me.
We all have a path we choose what matters is it a path that fits who we are
and how we think. It does not matter what that path is be it Jewish,
Christian, Pagan, Atheist, or a million others it does not matter which path
you follow only that it is the path that is right for you. The rest is just
details my friends and details only matter to those who follow the path of
their choosing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
19 Jun 2007 01:42:39 PM |
|
|
In <46781bfb$0$26900$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, on 06/19/07
at 02:09 PM, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> said:
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182231730.136605.31060@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... On Jun 18,
11:48 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:34:34 -0700, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
All right folks here it is you are all intellectually dishonest. Anyone
According to you, but opinions are like assholes, everyone either has
one or is one.
that claims that another must prove their beliefs are valid before
they can be valid is dishonest for they are valid for the person that
But, theya re only valid to the bleater. To anyone else, they are your
fractured fairy tale.
believes them. We all make choices we choose to believe or not to
believe we choose to be theistic or atheistic, both are a choice.
No, they are not. I can no more lie to myself & pretend to believe in
any divine than I can believe I can walk from here to Europe. IOW, to
not believe is simply a viable option based on personal integrity & a
conscience that says all lies are bad.
Anyone who says they did not choose the path they are following is
either a liar or a fool. If you say you did not choose it but you have
Really? Fancy that, & no doubt you believe what you just said. I see why
Chris holds you in contempt. I suspect I may end up the same if I read
enough of you.
given it, thought then you are a liar, because thought indicates a
choice. It is with thought that we come to decide actions and it is
through careful thought that we make the decisions that are best for
each of us. If you did not think about it and do not think about it
then you are a fool, taking an action or holding a belief without
You seem to be under the mis-apprehension that atheists arrive at
atheism by a couscious act of will. Unfortunately for you, you are
wrong. But don't let that stop you, you are presenting a fine example
of why theism is not a good thing for thinking people.
thought means, you have not the ability to consider why you believe or
do not believe as you do. That is just scary, it is like when Bush
said he only thought about the things he thought about, that is a bit
scary to me.
Well yes, but you are a theist.
We all have a path we choose what matters is it a path that fits who we
are and how we think. It does not matter what that path is be it
The path I choose has nothing to do with gods, just as the path you
choose has nothing to do with Chutillu[sp], I hope. A path of thought or
life is not of necessity based on your whims or fears, fortunately for
those like myself.
Jewish, Christian, Pagan, Atheist, or a million others it does not
matter which path you follow only that it is the path that is right
for you. The rest is just details my friends and details only matter
to those who follow the path of their choosing.
Or those that think they are in a position to dictate to others, such as
yourself. Large hint, you could not be more right & wrong if you tried.
walksalone who foresees a long year ahead if this is the fare I will be
seeing.
"If the sum of credible evidence we have is that the universe lacks
anything like a god, then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that
there isn't one."
--Neal M. Stevens
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
19 Jun 2007 06:14:18 PM |
|
|
<walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.ceap> wrote in message
news:f59814$vie$1@news.datemas.de...
In <46781bfb$0$26900$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, on 06/19/07
at 02:09 PM, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> said:
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182231730.136605.31060@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... On Jun 18,
11:48 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:34:34 -0700, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
All right folks here it is you are all intellectually dishonest. Anyone
According to you, but opinions are like assholes, everyone either has
one or is one.
that claims that another must prove their beliefs are valid before
they can be valid is dishonest for they are valid for the person that
But, theya re only valid to the bleater. To anyone else, they are your
fractured fairy tale.
The problem here is you are not willing or perhaps not able to allow that
not all is within the realms of a scientific explanation. There are many
things for which science is very well suited, but this is not one of those.
This is the realm of philosophy and religion they need not be true to you in
order to be valid to another. There is a difference between that which is
scienticly true and that which is a religous truth, one is of the natural
world with tangible explainations and evidence most people can agree upon.
The other is a matter of the spiritual world and no two people will ever
agree upon all aspects of it. Each has their own forts with regards to the
questions of the human condition the key is not trying make one be the same
as the other, both are equal in worth but of differing realms.
believes them. We all make choices we choose to believe or not to
believe we choose to be theistic or atheistic, both are a choice.
No, they are not. I can no more lie to myself & pretend to believe in
any divine than I can believe I can walk from here to Europe. IOW, to
not believe is simply a viable option based on personal integrity & a
conscience that says all lies are bad.
You may claim it is not a choice, but that is being dishonest unless you are
saying you have never thought of why you are an atheist. Anyone who
intellectually honest will look back and see how they came to where they are
now. Choices and thoughts that make up what they are in todays world and new
choices and thoughts that will make who they will become.
Anyone who says they did not choose the path they are following is
either a liar or a fool. If you say you did not choose it but you have
Really? Fancy that, & no doubt you believe what you just said. I see why
Chris holds you in contempt. I suspect I may end up the same if I read
enough of you.
Try reading the whole of it in context with the full explanation before you
respond this is one of Lee's issues he posts first and thinks never.
given it, thought then you are a liar, because thought indicates a
choice. It is with thought that we come to decide actions and it is
through careful thought that we make the decisions that are best for
each of us. If you did not think about it and do not think about it
then you are a fool, taking an action or holding a belief without
You seem to be under the mis-apprehension that atheists arrive at
atheism by a couscious act of will.
All of us come to where we are by a force of will, by choice just some of us
are more honest about that fact than others. I know some claim everyone is
born an atheist, but this is as unsupproted as those who claim that each is
born a theist. We are all the products of our past and of our experinces and
yes choices. All must choose what path they have before them or they are
following along blind. Are you a blind atheist who has never thought of why
you are an atheist?
Unfortunately for you, you are
wrong. But don't let that stop you, you are presenting a fine example
of why theism is not a good thing for thinking people.
This is one of the many reasons I have some atheists to be less than
intellectual. You make assumptions about what is being sad rather than to
read and respond to the actual post. This is another part of the
intellectual dishonesty, it is also a trait of the fundmentalist, neither of
you bothers to think before you post.
thought means, you have not the ability to consider why you believe or
do not believe as you do. That is just scary, it is like when Bush
said he only thought about the things he thought about, that is a bit
scary to me.
Well yes, but you are a theist.
Yes I am and I came to be through choice and thought.
We all have a path we choose what matters is it a path that fits who we
are and how we think. It does not matter what that path is be it
The path I choose has nothing to do with gods, just as the path you
choose has nothing to do with Chutillu[sp], I hope. A path of thought or
life is not of necessity based on your whims or fears, fortunately for
those like myself.
No it does not require Gods as I pointed out below it does depend on knowing
yourself and knowing what path is right for you though, this all requires
thought and honesty with oneself.
Jewish, Christian, Pagan, Atheist, or a million others it does not
matter which path you follow only that it is the path that is right
for you. The rest is just details my friends and details only matter
to those who follow the path of their choosing.
Or those that think they are in a position to dictate to others, such as
yourself. Large hint, you could not be more right & wrong if you tried.
Son, I do not see me dictating to you about anything if you are happy with
your choices that is what matters. As I said it is up to each to decide for
themselves what path to follow.
walksalone who foresees a long year ahead if this is the fare I will be
seeing.
You do seem to lack intellectual ability mayhaps you would be better
sticking with simpler easier subjects say coloring.
"If the sum of credible evidence we have is that the universe lacks
anything like a god, then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that
there isn't one."
--Neal M. Stevens
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
19 Jun 2007 10:34:30 PM |
|
|
"Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:4678635d$0$9010$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
<walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.ceap> wrote in message
news:f59814$vie$1@news.datemas.de...
In <46781bfb$0$26900$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, on 06/19/07
at 02:09 PM, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> said:
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182231730.136605.31060@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... On Jun 18,
11:48 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:34:34 -0700, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
All right folks here it is you are all intellectually dishonest. Anyone
According to you, but opinions are like assholes, everyone either has
one or is one.
that claims that another must prove their beliefs are valid before
they can be valid is dishonest for they are valid for the person that
But, theya re only valid to the bleater. To anyone else, they are your
fractured fairy tale.
The problem here is you are not willing or perhaps not able to allow that
not all is within the realms of a scientific explanation.
One can accept that, and STILL rationally dismiss your fairy tales.
here are many
things for which science is very well suited, but this is not one of
those.
Sure.
Science is best suited towards reality.
Fantasies, fairy tales, delusions and mental corruption ire not the realms
in which science operates.
This is the realm of philosophy and religion they need not be true to you
in order to be valid to another. There is a difference between that which
is scienticly true and that which is a religous truth,
Since one can only say ANYTHING meaningful about reality - there is no such
thing as "religious truth".
one is of the natural
world with tangible explainations and evidence most people can agree upon.
The other is a matter of the spiritual world and no two people will ever
agree upon all aspects of it.
Which means NEITHER interpretation is valid.
Each has their own forts with regards to the
questions of the human condition the key is not trying make one be the
same as the other, both are equal in worth but of differing realms.
Again, science is in the realm of reality .... religion is ..... when,
hell - even THEY don't know!
believes them. We all make choices we choose to believe or not to
believe we choose to be theistic or atheistic, both are a choice.
No, they are not. I can no more lie to myself & pretend to believe in
any divine than I can believe I can walk from here to Europe. IOW, to
not believe is simply a viable option based on personal integrity & a
conscience that says all lies are bad.
You may claim it is not a choice, but that is being dishonest unless you
are saying you have never thought of why you are an atheist.
Let's see .... that's like saying "I am making a choice to live with my feet
on the ground" ... or, the alternative, I honestly BELIEVE I can fly.
Anyone who
intellectually honest will look back and see how they came to where they
are now. Choices and thoughts that make up what they are in todays world
and new choices and thoughts that will make who they will become.
I came where I am now, as an atheist, as from the same real world I was born
into.
While many have tried to get me to "buy" their relgious product - none of
them has provided ANY evidence or facts to support thier claims .... so here
I stay.
Anyone who says they did not choose the path they are following is
either a liar or a fool. If you say you did not choose it but you have
Really? Fancy that, & no doubt you believe what you just said. I see why
Chris holds you in contempt. I suspect I may end up the same if I read
enough of you.
Try reading the whole of it in context with the full explanation before
you respond this is one of Lee's issues he posts first and thinks never.
given it, thought then you are a liar, because thought indicates a
choice. It is with thought that we come to decide actions and it is
through careful thought that we make the decisions that are best for
each of us. If you did not think about it and do not think about it
then you are a fool, taking an action or holding a belief without
You seem to be under the mis-apprehension that atheists arrive at
atheism by a couscious act of will.
All of us come to where we are by a force of will, by choice just some of
us are more honest about that fact than others. I know some claim everyone
is born an atheist, but this is as unsupproted as those who claim that
each is born a theist.
If there is no evidence tothe contrary, the default assumption is all are
born atheistic.
Like everything else, if you calim differently, you have to prove
differently.
We are all the products of our past and of our experinces and
yes choices. All must choose what path they have before them or they are
following along blind. Are you a blind atheist who has never thought of
why you are an atheist?
Uhhh.... because no religion has ever offered anything rational, sane and
supported by evidence that I must change?
It takes about as much thought here as it does when someone offers to sell
me the Brooklyn Bridge.
Unfortunately for you, you are
wrong. But don't let that stop you, you are presenting a fine example
of why theism is not a good thing for thinking people.
This is one of the many reasons I have some atheists to be less than
intellectual.
Yes, some are.
But it is also true that the more educated a person is - the more likely
they are to be atheistic.
You make assumptions about what is being sad rather than to
read and respond to the actual post. This is another part of the
intellectual dishonesty, it is also a trait of the fundmentalist, neither
of you bothers to think before you post.
Where? What assumptions?
That atheism needs thought rather than just the realization that someone is
trying to convince you to buy crap?
That theists CANNOT know their ***** from a hole in the ground because there
is NO factual basis for ANY religous belief - yet they follow it?
thought means, you have not the ability to consider why you believe or
do not believe as you do. That is just scary, it is like when Bush
said he only thought about the things he thought about, that is a bit
scary to me.
Well yes, but you are a theist.
Yes I am and I came to be through choice and thought.
Choice, yes ... thought, no.
The rational conclusion to thinking is to go where the facts and evidence
take you.
You HAVE no facts and evidence.
We all have a path we choose what matters is it a path that fits who we
are and how we think. It does not matter what that path is be it
The path I choose has nothing to do with gods, just as the path you
choose has nothing to do with Chutillu[sp], I hope. A path of thought or
life is not of necessity based on your whims or fears, fortunately for
those like myself.
No it does not require Gods as I pointed out below it does depend on
knowing yourself and knowing what path is right for you though, this all
requires thought and honesty with oneself.
Jewish, Christian, Pagan, Atheist, or a million others it does not
matter which path you follow only that it is the path that is right
for you. The rest is just details my friends and details only matter
to those who follow the path of their choosing.
Or those that think they are in a position to dictate to others, such as
yourself. Large hint, you could not be more right & wrong if you tried.
Son, I do not see me dictating to you about anything if you are happy with
your choices that is what matters. As I said it is up to each to decide
for themselves what path to follow.
walksalone who foresees a long year ahead if this is the fare I will be
seeing.
You do seem to lack intellectual ability mayhaps you would be better
sticking with simpler easier subjects say coloring.
Nice, rational, well thought out defense from your "path".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
20 Jun 2007 08:57:22 AM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@onehandclapping.com> wrote in message
news:af1ei.4709$%t6.4072@trnddc02...
One can accept that, and STILL rationally dismiss your fairy tales.
You may call it anything you like but if you have not thought about anything
then you are as much a fool as those who have blind faith.
here are many
things for which science is very well suited, but this is not one of
those.
Sure.
Science is best suited towards reality.
Fantasies, fairy tales, delusions and mental corruption ire not the realms
in which science operates.
Science deals with the Natural World and for the most part has little or
nothing to say about the religous one.
This is the realm of philosophy and religion they need not be true to you
in order to be valid to another. There is a difference between that which
is scienticly true and that which is a religous truth,
Since one can only say ANYTHING meaningful about reality - there is no
such thing as "religious truth".
This is sad if you believe that to be true it shows a lack of both thought
and education.
one is of the natural
world with tangible explainations and evidence most people can agree
upon. The other is a matter of the spiritual world and no two people will
ever agree upon all aspects of it.
Which means NEITHER interpretation is valid.
Your ingorance is showing, just because you do not understand something or
agree with it doe not make it any less real or worthwhile.
Each has their own forts with regards to the
questions of the human condition the key is not trying make one be the
same as the other, both are equal in worth but of differing realms.
Again, science is in the realm of reality .... religion is ..... when,
hell - even THEY don't know!
Again No Science deals with Natural Forces nothing More Nothing less, if you
do not grasp that then you nothing of science.
believes them. We all make choices we choose to believe or not to
believe we choose to be theistic or atheistic, both are a choice.
No, they are not. I can no more lie to myself & pretend to believe in
any divine than I can believe I can walk from here to Europe. IOW, to
not believe is simply a viable option based on personal integrity & a
conscience that says all lies are bad.
You may claim it is not a choice, but that is being dishonest unless you
are saying you have never thought of why you are an atheist.
Let's see .... that's like saying "I am making a choice to live with my
feet on the ground" ... or, the alternative, I honestly BELIEVE I can fly.
just as the path you
choose has nothing to do with Chutillu[sp], I hope. A path of thought or
life is not of necessity based on your whims or fears, fortunately for
those like myself.
No it does not require Gods as I pointed out below it does depend on
knowing yourself and knowing what path is right for you though, this all
requires thought and honesty with oneself.
Jewish, Christian, Pagan, Atheist, or a million others it does not
matter which path you follow only that it is the path that is right
for you. The rest is just details my friends and details only matter
to those who follow the path of their choosing.
Or those that think they are in a position to dictate to others, such as
yourself. Large hint, you could not be more right & wrong if you tried.
Son, I do not see me dictating to you about anything if you are happy
with your choices that is what matters. As I said it is up to each to
decide for themselves what path to follow.
Remainder of moronic mindless and immature atheist crap snipped.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
19 Jun 2007 09:04:44 PM |
|
|
In <4678635d$0$9010$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, on 06/19/07
at 07:14 PM, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> said:
<walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.ceap> wrote in message
news:f59814$vie$1@news.datemas.de...
In <46781bfb$0$26900$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, on 06/19/07
at 02:09 PM, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> said:
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182231730.136605.31060@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... On Jun 18,
11:48 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:34:34 -0700, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
All right folks here it is you are all intellectually dishonest. Anyone
According to you, but opinions are like assholes, everyone either has
one or is one.
that claims that another must prove their beliefs are valid before
they can be valid is dishonest for they are valid for the person that
But, theya re only valid to the bleater. To anyone else, they are your
fractured fairy tale.
The problem here is you are not willing or perhaps not able to allow
that not all is within the realms of a scientific explanation. There
Fairy tales & supernatural claims have nothing to do with science, they
are outside its discipline.
are many things for which science is very well suited, but this is not
one of those. This is the realm of philosophy and religion they need
I see, you are claimimg that there is no burden of proof, because your
claims are oustide the ability of providing proof. Your claim, I wait
your evidence.
not be true to you in order to be valid to another. There is a
Its real simple, you can keep all the pet gods you want, & as long as
you keep them in the proper venues, your mind & with like minded people,
there is no problem. But you failed to do that the first time you
mentioned a divine existing to anyone that did not accept your erroneous
belief that they have the onus/burden to accept your fractured fairy
tale at the value you place on it. I for one don't nor do I accept you
claim that I should.
difference between that which is scienticly true and that which is a
religous truth, one is of the natural world with tangible
explainations and evidence most people can agree upon. The other is a
matter of the spiritual world and no two people will ever agree upon
First things first, get rid of the assumption that everyone accepts the
existance of any spiritual world. You are talking as if your assumptions
are universally held. It does me no disservice to inform you that they
are not.
all aspects of it. Each has their own forts with regards to the
questions of the human condition the key is not trying make one be the
same as the other, both are equal in worth but of differing realms.
To be blunt, horse ap-ples. Plain & simple, there is no reason to accept
the invisib le entity/.world claims of those that whine about them as if
theyt were real. Do you accept the Beab Shee, probably not. How about:
Abgaledit Aglibol Allat Almaqah Amn Anbay A'ra Arsu Asar Asira
Atarsamain Azizos Baltis Basamum Datin Haubas Haukim Hilal Hubal
Kahilan Malakbel Manat Mandah Marnas Nahi Orotalt Qaynan Qos Quzah Ruda
Salm of Mahram Sams Singla Ta'lab Theandros Anat Anat Arsay Aserah
Aserah Astarte Athirat Attar Baal Malage Baal Samin Baal Sapon Baal
Bethel Dagan Dagan Derceto Čl-eb Elkunirsa Esmun Hadad Haurun Il
Kades Melqart Mikal Mot Mot Myrrrha Pidray Pidray Pothos
Resep(A)mukal Resep(A)mukal Sapas Tanit Tanit Adam Beliyya'al' Abalim
Abba Amona Abba Adonaiel Akatriel-Yah Alukah Anafiel Archon Asherah
Asmodeus Baal-Karmelos Bat Kol Belial Bethel Chashmal Chayyot Ben Elohim
El Dumiel Elohim Elom Ibbur Elim Lotan Mazikeen Memra Nibhaz Piznai
Rahav Shabbat Hamalka Arom Bagisht Dagan Disani Dogumrik Duzhi Gish Gujo
Immat Imra Indr Kshumai Lumang Maramalik Mon Munjem Malik Munjem Malik
Nirmali Nong Panao Paneu Poluknalai Prakde Sanju Shomde Sudrem Zhiwud
Agas Ahriman Ahura Mazda Ahurani(Ardi Sura Ahurani) Airyaman
Allatum(Ellat)Ameretat Anahita Anaitis Angra Mainyu Apam Napat
Asmodaios(Asmodeus)Asuras Azi Dahaka(Azhdahak,Azdahak,AzhiDahaka) Baga
Bahram Burijas(Buriyas) Cautes and Cautopates Daena Daevas Dahhak Dena
Devas Diwe Fravashis Fravasi Gandarewa Gayomart Geus Tasan Geus Urvan
Hvar Indar Izha Jamshid Mah Manu Mao Mithra Neriosang Peris Rapithwin
Rashnu(Rasnu) Senmurw SpentaArmaiti Spenta Mainyu(Spenak Meno)
Sraosha(Sraosa,Sros) Thunaupa Tishtriya(Tistrya)Vata(Vayu)Vata
Verethragna(Bairam) Verethragna Yazata Yima Zam
Zurvan(Zervan,Zrvan)Attis Kybele Men Papas Priapos Sabzios
Sangarios[Phyrgian]
According to your assumptions every one of those is as real as death.
Quite possibly more real than Mitnal.
believes them. We all make choices we choose to believe or not to
believe we choose to be theistic or atheistic, both are a choice.
No, they are not. I can no more lie to myself & pretend to believe in
any divine than I can believe I can walk from here to Europe. IOW, to
not believe is simply a viable option based on personal integrity & a
conscience that says all lies are bad.
You may claim it is not a choice, but that is being dishonest unless
You are lying on me again.
you are saying you have never thought of why you are an atheist.
So, you insist in calling others a liar with regularity then. Until I
was called one by a fat Southern Baptist preachers wife, I did not even
know the word existed. I did know there is no reason to believe in
something that has no valid reason to exist.
Anyone who intellectually honest will look back and see how they came
to where they are now. Choices and thoughts that make up what they are
in todays world and new choices and thoughts that will make who they
will become.
For me it's real easy, no requiremnets are there, the requirement to
exist being the first of many. You assumpr that people are either lying
or ignorant b eyond belief when they say there is no choice in being an
atheist. You lie every time you pretend there is any truth in that. I
am beginning to suspeccxt it is concious lying on your part.
Anyone who says they did not choose the path they are following is
either a liar or a fool. If you say you did not choose it but you have
Really? Fancy that, & no doubt you believe what you just said. I see why
Chris holds you in contempt. I suspect I may end up the same if I read
enough of you.
Try reading the whole of it in context with the full explanation before
you respond this is one of Lee's issues he posts first and thinks
never.
I have news for you, from some people I expect to be called a liar. From
you, I did not expect to be called a liar continuously. Until you have
walked in these moccasins, you know nothing of how I have arrived at any
conclusions, nor can you. This much you can know, I got over my fear of
death a long time ago, & it took any chance of believeing in an
invisible friend that may have created me out of boredom. I got over
that fear by studying man 's gods & the claims for them.
given it, thought then you are a liar, because thought indicates a
choice. It is with thought that we come to decide actions and it is
through careful thought that we make the decisions that are best for
each of us. If you did not think about it and do not think about it
then you are a fool, taking an action or holding a belief without
You seem to be under the mis-apprehension that atheists arrive at
atheism by a couscious act of will.
All of us come to where we are by a force of will, by choice just some
Quite lying, you can only speak for yourself & not me. I refuse to let
you place your burdens on my back. Not only that, but your claim is
false. You don't need to consider you have we fpolk at the foot of your
bed. You know you don't. No consideration requirerd. It does not require
concious thought to realise some claims are without merit.
of us are more honest about that fact than others. I know some claim
everyone is born an atheist, but this is as unsupproted as those who
It is supported by one simple fact. To not be an atheist requires never
being exposed to the concept of invisible fiends. Something that is not
likely in the US or anywhere else the population density is above
1:10000Ha.
claim that each is born a theist. We are all the products of our past
and of our experinces and yes choices. All must choose what path they
have before them or they are following along blind. Are you a blind
atheist who has never thought of why you are an atheist?
Had the misfortune of considering that a xian, of all things might have
a point & their gods as described were possibly real. I am an atheist
because there is no supporting evidence for any deity construct pimped
by any human. Now, to change that is going to require something that has
never been done, no talk, just facts. Something you seem to feel does
not apply to you, but it does, Until then, no thought was required.
Unlike blind theists, I have bothered to ask WTF, & try & find the
answers that fit rather than the ones that gave me a warm damp spot in
my trousers. I suppose it is a matter of personal integrity & courage,
the theist may well be lacking those items where his god spot is.
Unfortunately for you, you are
wrong. But don't let that stop you, you are presenting a fine example
of why theism is not a good thing for thinking people.
This is one of the many reasons I have some atheists to be less than
intellectual. You make assumptions about what is being sad rather than
I draw conclusions based on what you say & present. I do not need
assumptions, you make enough for both of us.
to read and respond to the actual post. This is another part of the
intellectual dishonesty, it is also a trait of the fundmentalist,
The voice of peresonal experience. If you want to be underatood, & your
message is other than what you are presenting, that is not myh concern.
neither of you bothers to think before you post.
You might try thinking before you post prior to claiming others are
guilty of emulating you. You see, I can only respond to what you type, &
if it is not what you meant, the fault is yours. Just because we are
both using English does not mean we are communicating, even if you
assume so. So far, your verbal skills are less than impressiuve to
someone who wore chevrons for over 16 years, & has managed to
communicate around the world.
thought means, you have not the ability to consider why you believe or
do not believe as you do. That is just scary, it is like when Bush
said he only thought about the things he thought about, that is a bit
scary to me.
Well yes, but you are a theist.
Yes I am and I came to be through choice and thought.
My condolences, if you ever find the required evidence, Share? Until
then, you are b;lowing smoke & patting yourself on the back.
We all have a path we choose what matters is it a path that fits who we
are and how we think. It does not matter what that path is be it
The path I choose has nothing to do with gods, just as the path you
choose has nothing to do with Chutillu[sp], I hope. A path of thought or
life is not of necessity based on your whims or fears, fortunately for
those like myself.
No it does not require Gods as I pointed out below it does depend on
knowing yourself and knowing what path is right for you though, this
all requires thought and honesty with oneself.
IOW, you really haven't a clue have you now? If people were honest with
themselves, there would be no theists, but theists exist. There are
always going to be sheep in need of a shepherd, & most of them will not
have four legs.
Jewish, Christian, Pagan, Atheist, or a million others it does not
matter which path you follow only that it is the path that is right
for you. The rest is just details my friends and details only matter
to those who follow the path of their choosing.
Or those that think they are in a position to dictate to others, such as
yourself. Large hint, you could not be more right & wrong if you tried.
Son, I do not see me dictating to you about anything if you are happy
I do not recall you sitting at my father's table, & I know you never sat
at mione. Save the presumtions for the mental chiuldren you seek to
impress.
with your choices that is what matters. As I said it is up to each to
decide for themselves what path to follow.
Happiness has nothing to do with my failure to select an invisible
fiend, personal honesty & integrity OTOH, have everything to do with it.
There is at least one occasion that I can recall where having an
invisible friend to kiss the hurt & make it better would have been nice,
but none volunteered. If they can't get off their dead ***** & show that
they exist, there is no reason to waste skull sweat on the mistaken
concept. Now if you have evidence, Share.
walksalone who foresees a long year ahead if this is the fare I will be
seeing.
You do seem to lack intellectual ability mayhaps you would be better
sticking with simpler easier subjects say coloring.
Can't, someone like you would try & tell me which crayon I needed before
I opened the book. Keep your inferiority complex to yourself, as well as
your coloring papers. Or do they let you use books now?
walksalone who can not tell the practical difference between this theist
& your basic issue US xian. Other than for now, this one pretends to be
a mental giant compared to others, like say, Roger Pearse or Malcolm.
DISABUSE, v.t. The present your neighbor with another and better error
than the one which he has deemed it advantageous to embrace.
Devils dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
20 Jun 2007 08:51:20 AM |
|
|
<walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.ceap> wrote in message
news:f5a1u0$9qr$1@news.datemas.de...
The problem here is you are not willing or perhaps not able to allow
that not all is within the realms of a scientific explanation. There
Fairy tales & supernatural claims have nothing to do with science, they
are outside its discipline.
Relgion is outside the perview and the forts of science as are many things,
though I know a few parapsycologists that would argue the rest of your
statement.
are many things for which science is very well suited, but this is not
one of those. This is the realm of philosophy and religion they need
I see, you are claimimg that there is no burden of proof, because your
claims are oustide the ability of providing proof. Your claim, I wait
your evidence.
No I am saying that science is science and religion is religion. What is
within the perview of each is not up to the other.
not be true to you in order to be valid to another. There is a
Its real simple, you can keep all the pet gods you want, & as long as
you keep them in the proper venues, your mind & with like minded people,
there is no problem. But you failed to do that the first time you
mentioned a divine existing to anyone that did not accept your erroneous
belief that they have the onus/burden to accept your fractured fairy
tale at the value you place on it. I for one don't nor do I accept you
claim that I should.
Are you stupid or just too pig ignorant to read and pay attnetion. It is not
up to you to tell anyone where they shall have their Gods. It is not up to
you to tell anyone else what they can or should believe. It is not up to
anyone to tell you what to believe or not, each must decide for themselves.
difference between that which is scienticly true and that which is a
religous truth, one is of the natural world with tangible
explainations and evidence most people can agree upon. The other is a
matter of the spiritual world and no two people will ever agree upon
First things first, get rid of the assumption that everyone accepts the
existance of any spiritual world. You are talking as if your assumptions
are universally held. It does me no disservice to inform you that they
are not.
Universaly maybe not though I would say Quatum Physics comes closeer than
any other scince to showing they are just as real and the so called natural
world. The Spiritual world is on the other hand known to most everyone on
this planet, the failure of yourself to be open minded to that is not the
rest of the worlds problem.
all aspects of it. Each has their own forts with regards to the
questions of the human condition the key is not trying make one be the
same as the other, both are equal in worth but of differing realms.
To be blunt, horse ap-ples. Plain & simple, there is no reason to accept
the invisib le entity/.world claims of those that whine about them as if
Mindless and meaningless crap snipped. This your claim it is in fact a
minority claim even among atheists so it is by your standards something you
should keep to yourself. You can not make a single point that refutes
anything I have said here all you are able to do is ***** about not agreeing
with it.
According to your assumptions every one of those is as real as death.
Quite possibly more real than Mitnal.
The concepts are very real and shown to be more real all the time to those
who hold them. Have you ever considered that maybe if so many people know
about the Spiritual then maybe it is you that is blind not them.
believes them. We all make choices we choose to believe or not to
believe we choose to be theistic or atheistic, both are a choice.
No, they are not. I can no more lie to myself & pretend to believe in
any divine than I can believe I can walk from here to Europe. IOW, to
not believe is simply a viable option based on personal integrity & a
conscience that says all lies are bad.
You may claim it is not a choice, but that is being dishonest unless
You are lying on me again.
You abnd Lee have this thing for calling anything you do not agree with a
Lie it shows a great deal about your own insecurities.
you are saying you have never thought of why you are an atheist.
So, you insist in calling others a liar with regularity then. Until I
was called one by a fat Southern Baptist preachers wife, I did not even
know the word existed. I did know there is no reason to believe in
something that has no valid reason to exist.
Then you sir are a fool. Holding to something without thought is what a fool
does and it is just as ignorant as blind faith.
Remainder snipped as it is not worth a response to someone who is willfully
ignorant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
20 Jun 2007 12:08:02 PM |
|
|
In <467930db$0$8027$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, on 06/20/07
at 09:51 AM, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> said:
<walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.ceap> wrote in message
news:f5a1u0$9qr$1@news.datemas.de...
The problem here is you are not willing or perhaps not able to allow
that not all is within the realms of a scientific explanation. There
Fairy tales & supernatural claims have nothing to do with science, they
are outside its discipline.
Relgion is outside the perview and the forts of science as are many
things, though I know a few parapsycologists that would argue the rest
of your statement.
I believe the word you mean is forté, as to parapsychologists, their
field is not one that science concerns itself with, nor should it. now
if they can find some evidence that they can present at the Unseen
University, they may be on to something. But as it stands, they do not
fare well in science required fields. IOW, they too are outside the
boundaries of science..
are many things for which science is very well suited, but this is not
one of those. This is the realm of philosophy and religion they need
I see, you are claimimg that there is no burden of proof, because your
claims are oustide the ability of providing proof. Your claim, I wait
your evidence.
No I am saying that science is science and religion is religion. What
is within the perview of each is not up to the other.
Yet, you pretend that religion should be given the same weight as
science. Not my problem if you conflate the requirement for evidence to
be dissimilar.
not be true to you in order to be valid to another. There is a
Its real simple, you can keep all the pet gods you want, & as long as
you keep them in the proper venues, your mind & with like minded people,
there is no problem. But you failed to do that the first time you
mentioned a divine existing to anyone that did not accept your erroneous
belief that they have the onus/burden to accept your fractured fairy
tale at the value you place on it. I for one don't nor do I accept you
claim that I should.
Are you stupid or just too pig ignorant to read and pay attnetion. It
Neither according to people that know me, & you?
is not up to you to tell anyone where they shall have their Gods. It
is not up to you to tell anyone else what they can or should believe.
It is not up to anyone to tell you what to believe or not, each must
decide for themselves.
Nor have I, I take it that language is not your first language then.
BTW, the inverse is also true, it is not up to you to pretend to be able
to tell me that gods exist until you can establish that as fact. not
belief, fact. Now, if you are over your temper tantrum, do you wish to
continue proving that you are not only arrogant but pompous as well?
difference between that which is scienticly true and that which is a
religous truth, one is of the natural world with tangible
explainations and evidence most people can agree upon. The other is a
matter of the spiritual world and no two people will ever agree upon
First things first, get rid of the assumption that everyone accepts the
existance of any spiritual world. You are talking as if your assumptions
are universally held. It does me no disservice to inform you that they
are not.
Universaly maybe not though I would say Quatum Physics comes closeer
than any other scince to showing they are just as real and the so
called natural world. The Spiritual world is on the other hand known
to most everyone on this planet, the failure of yourself to be open
minded to that is not the rest of the worlds problem.
Is it really, or are you just saying that to impress yourself? I suspect
that you give so much credence to the sound of your voice that you
forget human history & the rape of the mind predominately done by
organized religions. Do I accept that those with little to live for
frequently find a god to worship, yes. Do I accept that implies a
spiritual world of some sort, depends. Prior to the Babylonian vacation
from Judea, there was an afterlife, but you had no choice & you would
not have liked it. That does not mean it was real, just that others,
others like you, accepted it as real. Apparently this is something you
are having trouble wrapping your mind around, most theists I've
encountered in the US do. Yet there are myths that do not push an
afterlife as part of the deal.
all aspects of it. Each has their own forts with regards to the
questions of the human condition the key is not trying make one be the
same as the other, both are equal in worth but of differing realms.
To be blunt, horse ap-ples. Plain & simple, there is no reason to accept
the invisib le entity/.world claims of those that whine about them as if
Mindless and meaningless crap snipped. This your claim it is in fact a
Disrespect to the gods of others noted, Those names are re-instated with
full honors. BTW, they are almost all neighbors & predecessors of your
gods.
*********************************************
Do you accept the Beab Shee, probably not. How about:
Abgaledit Aglibol Allat Almaqah Amn Anbay A'ra Arsu Asar Asira
Atarsamain Azizos Baltis Basamum Datin Haubas Haukim Hilal Hubal
Kahilan Malakbel Manat Mandah Marnas Nahi Orotalt Qaynan Qos Quzah Ruda
Salm of Mahram Sams Singla Ta'lab Theandros Anat Anat Arsay Aserah
Aserah Astarte Athirat Attar Baal Malage Baal Samin Baal Sapon Baal
Bethel Dagan Dagan Derceto Čl-eb Elkunirsa Esmun Hadad Haurun Il
Kades Melqart Mikal Mot Mot Myrrrha Pidray Pidray Pothos
Resep(A)mukal Resep(A)mukal Sapas Tanit Tanit Adam Beliyya'al' Abalim
Abba Amona Abba Adonaiel Akatriel-Yah Alukah Anafiel Archon Asherah
Asmodeus Baal-Karmelos Bat Kol Belial Bethel Chashmal Chayyot Ben Elohim
El Dumiel Elohim Elom Ibbur Elim Lotan Mazikeen Memra Nibhaz Piznai
Rahav Shabbat Hamalka Arom Bagisht Dagan Disani Dogumrik Duzhi Gish Gujo
Immat Imra Indr Kshumai Lumang Maramalik Mon Munjem Malik Munjem Malik
Nirmali Nong Panao Paneu Poluknalai Prakde Sanju Shomde Sudrem Zhiwud
Agas Ahriman Ahura Mazda Ahurani(Ardi Sura Ahurani) Airyaman
Allatum(Ellat)Ameretat Anahita Anaitis Angra Mainyu Apam Napat
Asmodaios(Asmodeus)Asuras Azi Dahaka(Azhdahak,Azdahak,AzhiDahaka) Baga
Bahram Burijas(Buriyas) Cautes and Cautopates Daena Daevas Dahhak Dena
Devas Diwe Fravashis Fravasi Gandarewa Gayomart Geus Tasan Geus Urvan
Hvar Indar Izha Jamshid Mah Manu Mao Mithra Neriosang Peris Rapithwin
Rashnu(Rasnu) Senmurw SpentaArmaiti Spenta Mainyu(Spenak Meno)
Sraosha(Sraosa,Sros) Thunaupa Tishtriya(Tistrya)Vata(Vayu)Vata
Verethragna(Bairam) Verethragna Yazata Yima Zam
Zurvan(Zervan,Zrvan)Attis Kybele Men Papas Priapos Sabzios
Sangarios[Phyrgian]
According to your assumptions every one of those is as real as death.
Quite possibly more real than Mitnal.
believes them. We all make choices we choose to believe or not to
believe we choose to be theistic or atheistic, both are a choice.
Can't be, I'm still read & responding to it. Just because you can not
accept that thinking people do not acept your blith assumptions does
not mena they do not exist.
minority claim even among atheists so it is by your standards something
you should keep to yourself. You can not make a single point that
refutes anything I have said here all you are able to do is *****
about not agreeing with it.
You have to have a ;point before I can address it, something you c laim
but I've yet to encounter. BTW, self masturbation in public is not
considered a point, just a fact that some, apparently those like you,
like to engage in it.
According to your assumptions every one of those is as real as death.
Quite possibly more real than Mitnal.
The concepts are very real and shown to be more real all the time to
those who hold them. Have you ever considered that maybe if so many
people know about the Spiritual then maybe it is you that is blind not
them.
There is a major difference between know & have heard of or even
believe, a fact that appears to elude you. Not that anyone would be
shocked at that.
believes them. We all make choices we choose to believe or not to
believe we choose to be theistic or atheistic, both are a choice.
No, they are not. I can no more lie to myself & pretend to believe in
any divine than I can believe I can walk from here to Europe. IOW, to
not believe is simply a viable option based on personal integrity & a
conscience that says all lies are bad.
You may claim it is not a choice, but that is being dishonest unless
You are lying on me again.
You abnd Lee have this thing for calling anything you do not agree with
a Lie it shows a great deal about your own insecurities.
No, when I use the word lie, it is because one has been told. You know
neither one of us, yet you pretend to. You know nothing about what I
know avbout your gods, but that does not stop you from pretending you
do. You have no problem assumiong that everyone accepts your errors as
binding on them, but that to is a living lie.
you are saying you have never thought of why you are an atheist.
So, you insist in calling others a liar with regularity then. Until I
was called one by a fat Southern Baptist preachers wife, I did not even
know the word existed. I did know there is no reason to believe in
something that has no valid reason to exist.
Then you sir are a fool. Holding to something without thought is what a
fool does and it is just as ignorant as blind faith.
According to you, but you lost the right to think when you picked up the
mantle of theism, brand immaterial. & were I to be a fool, that still
would be better than being an arrogant pompous ***** that thinks he knows
what others think, or worse, how they should think.
Remainder snipped as it is not worth a response to someone who is
willfully ignorant.
Then why did you post & prove yourself to be willfully ignorant as well
as a pompous ***** that pretends it knows things, things that he alone can
tell you about? Things everyone else should follow once you *explain*
things to them.
walksalone who wonders, does jw, apolobetics, Carl et. al.. have a
replacement in training, or is the boy naturally bereft of cognitive
ability? Worse, does it matter?
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words.
- Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-4?Q?m=F2t?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The Presumptuousness of Atheism |
18 Jun 2007 05:45:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:48:19 -0700, john w wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:34:34 -0700, rogue <rogue719@hotmail.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Jun 17, 6:40 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
The following is an interesting brief article written by Paul Copan. I
present it "as is" since I found it fascinating and worthy of reposting for
possible discussions on Usenet ng's (especially with all the atheists and
agnostics present).
May God bless,
Carl
website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
"The Presumptuousness of Atheism"
by Paul Copan
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the
theist."1 Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, there
is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, considers
the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for Santa
Claus on the same level.2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns
out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist
also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.
JERRY
Actually, the theist is the one affirming the supernatural. The
burden of proof lies with the theist. Also, it's nearly impossible to
prove the negative, which is one of the reasons why theists keep
trying to put the burden of proof on the atheist.
Actually, it has been pretty well established that atheism is nothing
but arrogant intellectual dishonesty.
So well established that you expect others to take the word of a known lair
for it, a known liar called john d weatherly aka St. John the Liar? Easy
to say, but you will never provide the evidence for it.
I some time ago came up with a pretty sound argument FOR God's
One you can not replicate or even coherently present. Somewhat like your
can of tu | | | |
