Atheism is baseless.

My humble opinion is atheism is baseless; that is, without a solid, rational foundation for the belief.

Don't fly off the handle, let me explain.

Atheists I have encountered come in two varieties; hardcore ('There is certainly no God'), and softcore ('I am very sure, but not dead certain, there is no God.')

It is the former which I'd like to address; as far as I am concerned the latter position is just agnosticism.

Mind you, this argument does not prove, even suggest, that there is a God, so please don't rebutt on that. It will assert two points: that the atheism belief is irrational; and that all atheists can only be, at best, pessimistic agnostics.

The hard-core atheist position is, that with all certainty, there is NO God, never was, never will be a God.

How does the atheist know?

Has the atheist searched the entire cosmos to know, with certainty, there is no God? No, he has not; and as such, he cannot rationally hold the notion that there is no God.

But does that mean there is no pink unicorns either? Or the tooth fairy? Santa Claus? or even a Buffalo Bills Superbowl championship team?

Mmmm.....well you got me there, good point. We don't need to search the entire cosmos to know that there is no Santa Claus, tooth fairy or pink unicorns.

But the difference is this: God, by nature, MUST have an eternal, uncaused nature to be God. If you suggest he came into being, he must have been caused to come into being, which begs the question, who caused Him? A Super-God? No. God by nature, is the eternal being, the being of which no cause could cause. He IS the beginning. There is more to this argument, but the point is, he is eternal, uncaused, timeless.

That is the difference between God and pink unicorns. Pink unicorns don't exist, unless the fifth of Jack Daniels hasn't wore off yet.

------------------
"The only thing necessary
for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do
nothing." -Edmund Bu

Atheism would not regard God at all, per se, were God not already an issue, and were it not politically injected.

I can't speak for the proactive atheists who have a need to publicly disprove God. But in the case of whether an atheist voter wants his child to be taught Creationism (for instance) as fact in public schools, I feel the issue is forced upon the atheist, who must demonstrate the folly of Creationism as fact, and therefore argue against what faith holds as fact about God.

As to atheism being "baseless", what isn't?

How does the atheist know?

Has the atheist searched the entire cosmos to know, with certainty, there is no God? No, he has not; and as such, he cannot rationally hold the notion that there is no God.


The atheist starts with no assumptions when viewing the cosmos. Instead of holding the miracles of the Universe up as works of God, and thus going forth, the atheist looks at the Universe and simply goes forth. But as there is no real evidence to support the notion of a god, either, the atheist must work outside the parameters of faith until some evidence returns the seeker to the realm of presupposed faith.

Consider the nature of the process: the faithful will "believe" unto the end. The atheist will be inquiring, researching, and discovering unto the end. When you cut right through it, though, it's pretty much the same process with the same results, except for two factors: the words one uses to describe the experience, and the degree to which those words should be authoritative for others.

An atheist is wholly prepared to find God at the end of a well-executed process of discovery. That is, the atheist is prepared for the possibility that all scientific research and philosophical inquiry will lead to something as paradoxical as a god-form.

Of the faithful, what happens when they do meet God, and God is nothing like what they expect, is nothing like what the faithful think they're promised?

You are right, though, atheism is baseless. So is any philosophy which one might explain with language. Atheism, though, as opposed to theist faith, chooses to seek discovery instead of await revelation, which lends it some attraction.

Personally, I give a nod to the atheism for starting with the fewest irrevocable assumptions.

But atheism itself will not regard God at all, unless it is asked to do so.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

pashley: Welcome fellow and well met. I most heartily concur with your points.

tiassa: I understand your concerns. I wouldn't want my child to be taught anything that wasn't true or had a specific religious or philosophic viewpoint behind it. Public schools should teach, not preach, and that includes any doctrine that has no substantial evidence behind it, like the macro-evolution of mammals or materialism. Both have their roots in myth, not fact.

Alderian ....

Without jest ... so the best alternative is to not teach anything at all?

If we pick any starting point, and go forward, must we not gain some sense of convention if we are to be anything but a collection of individuals?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

tiassa,

If you want your child to be aware of any sort of realm of thought, i would imagine it best to teach it to them yourself (and, of course, let them decide what's best for them).

I want to ask you a question tiassa: As an atheist, what is your real goal in everyday life? I'm not refering to the distant goal of ultimate truth, which you plan on stumbling upon through the processes of reason. Rather, i refer to your interactions between people every moment. Is there any sort of peace (not necessarily hapiness) that you forsee? Have you already attained peace?

pashley,

I love your second to last paragraph. It was a refreshingly insightful philosophic jewel (IMHO).

------------------
My main basis for hope is that love is greater than hate.

Originally posted by tiassa:

The atheist starts with no assumptions when viewing the cosmos. Instead of holding the miracles of the Universe up as works of God, and thus going forth, the atheist looks at the Universe and simply goes forth. But as there is no real evidence to support the notion of a god, either, the atheist must work outside the parameters of faith until some evidence returns the seeker to the realm of presupposed faith.

Well, I'd have to disagree with your generalization that the atheistic community starts out "with no assumptions" when it comes to viewing the cosmos. When one asks themselves the monumental question, "is there a God?" They tend to default to one side or the other, based on their experiences; the Ethiopian mother, who has watched her children die of starvation, I submit, would be predisposed to answering "No."

Regarding "evidence" of God, I would submit all of creation is evidence. I think before saying "there is no evidence", you must ask, "What evidence would do?"


Consider the nature of the process: the faithful will "believe" unto the end. The atheist will be inquiring, researching, and discovering unto the end.

You seem to be portraying the atheist as a person that is in search of God, but my experience has been the atheist spends his time denying God at every turn. They don't appear open to even allowing for the possibility of God.

An atheist is wholly prepared to find God at the end of a well-executed process of discovery. That is, the atheist is prepared for the possibility that all scientific research and philosophical inquiry will lead to something as paradoxical as a god-form.

Again, I have to disagree with you. :)
My experience has been that the atheist actively seeks to dismiss the possiblity of God; no proof would ever be good enough, no argument ever strong enough for the atheist to have a change of heart.

Of the faithful, what happens when they do meet God, and God is nothing like what they expect, is nothing like what the faithful think they're promised?

Well, the only way we can know the nature of an object that is elusive, so distant, is by whatever effects the object produces, somewhat like the way black holes distort the fabric of the universe. We would have to get into a discussion on the problem of evil, the nature of God, and so on....might be a little much for this reply!


And as far as the "what if" part of the question, well, i guess I could ask the same question of the atheist: "What if God did exist, and you were wrong?"

You are right, though, atheism is baseless. So is any philosophy which one might explain with language. Atheism, though, as opposed to theist faith, chooses to seek discovery instead of await revelation, which lends it some attraction.

"...might explain with language." How else to transmit ideas?

Sorry to disagree with you again, but, I would hold that the theist is the one discovering, the atheist with the revelation. As you may have guessed by now (!) I am a theist. For me, saying "There is a God" is not enough; I want to discover his nature, find evidence for His existence and so on. The atheist, i feel, will have the revelation at death.

Thanks for your post, very interesting!

-Patrick



------------------
"The only thing necessary
for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do
nothing." -Edmund Bu

Pashley & DarkCrystal--

DarkCrystal

I'm actually not an atheist; it's just that I don't see my theology as being anything different from an atheist's perspective, except that I use different words to describe certain things, and that I might seek a different aspect of an object or an event. Beyond that, it's lengthy, but I'm happy to spill it if you'd like. (Really, I just didn't think you wanted that much back from me.) And I will mumble about other parts of your question, later, but for now I'm bouncing too many ideas. ;)

Pashley

I'll remind you of one of my statements you chose not to excerpt. It will be a recurring theme in my response here:

Atheism would not regard God at all, per se, were God not already an issue, and were it not politically injected.

Believe me, it's really quite important in this one.

For instance: "What evidence would do?"

Well, how about this: "Demonstrate" a portion of the Bible. Make any of the claims of faith objective, operable, and therefore "provable" within any scientific standard.

Now ... "Demonstrate" gravity.

To demonstrate gravity, I drop a stone. "Something makes this stone move like this. We call it gravity. From what we've learned about gravity, we can discuss how gravity works in the Universe, how every thing in the Universe is connected by it, and we can show it in finite spaces with really small objects." Essentially, we can do the math.

How, though, to demonstrate God? Any attempt to do so is blasphemous by most Christian standards.

You seem to be portraying the atheist as a person that is in search of God, but my experience has been the atheist spends his time denying God at every turn. They don't appear open to even allowing for the possibility of God.

I refer you to the excerpt I restated above. If one does not polarize a person to a specific issue, that person will generally ignore it. If one does not insist to an atheist that there is a God, the atheist has no cause to respond. Everything else is just a running game, because new participants can no longer discern method from mayhem.

And as far as the "what if" part of the question, well, i guess I could ask the same question of the atheist: "What if God did exist, and you were wrong?"

The question's based on your own assumption. I refer you again to the excerpt restated, and as to the atheist in question, I must refer you to an excerpt you've already rejected so that you can set up the grounds to reject it:

An atheist is wholly prepared to find God at the end of a well-executed process of discovery. That is, the atheist is prepared for the possibility that all scientific research and philosophical inquiry will lead to something as paradoxical as a god-form.

It won't occur to the atheist that he what he is seeking is actually God until he is upon it. Of course, if the atheist reaches that answer first, doesn't it mean that God wanted it that way?

"...might explain with language." How else to transmit ideas?

That might be the point. Before the rise of Judeo-Christian philosophy, religious persons generally (not all, but as a general trend) did not find difficulty leaving God "out there", as such. I would ask you to describe God completely in words. I would ask you to describe Christianity completely with words. Is there no part of the Universe that exceeds our ability to perceive, assimilate, and express?

Is the Bible, for instance, complete? If it is incomplete, is that incompleteness a necessity? I would say yes. God does not seem to be extraneous; if a few more chapters would make things clear, I'm quite sure that God Most Wise would have seen fit to include them. I would assert that the Bible is incomplete, lest we were to remain in Romanesque conditions contemporary to Christ. I would assert that this incompleteness is not a fault of the Book, but an inherent part of its mystery. If we could contain "God", whatever that may be, in a single, piecemeal volume, then why can't we figure out what's written in it?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Posted by Tiassa:
Atheism would not regard God at all, per se, were God not already an issue, and were it not politically injected.

Hmmmm, so atheists wouldn't get involved if there were not political implications?

And if the person defines themself an atheist, apparently the question of the existence of God must have been asked due to the nature of the question.

In regards to my question, "What evidence would do (regarding the existence of God)"..

Well, how about this: "Demonstrate" a portion of the Bible. Make any of the claims of faith objective, operable, and therefore "provable" within any scientific standard.

I'm not sure what you are fishing for here, or if it can even be found in the Bible. Creationism? Global Flood?

...I would ask you to describe God completely in words. I would ask you to describe Christianity completely with words. Is there no part of the Universe that exceeds our ability to perceive, assimilate, and express?

Yes, of course. Language is limited in what it can express, but that does not mean that a person cannot comprehend it. I can understand the great emotions Handel was trying to get across in "Messiah", yet not be able to put it into words. I agree with you, but not sure what the point was :)

Is the Bible, for instance, complete? If it is incomplete, is that incompleteness a necessity? I would say yes. God does not seem to be extraneous; if a few more chapters would make things clear, I'm quite sure that God Most Wise would have seen fit to include them. I would assert that the Bible is incomplete, lest we were to remain in Romanesque conditions contemporary to Christ. I would assert that this incompleteness is not a fault of the Book, but an inherent part of its mystery. If we could contain "God", whatever that may be, in a single, piecemeal volume, then why can't we figure out what's written in it?

Yes, I believe the Bible, actually a collection of 66 books is complete. It is one long story, really about Jesus, to sum. I'm not sure what you mean by, "why can't we figure out what's written in it." We can, and I think we have. I'm not sure if you have some concerns...?

------------------
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

Tiassa,

Your view on God is interesting. I would like to know more about your faith. Don't worry, I'm not going to try to convert you, or anything, just kinda curious about what you belive. If you don't want to post here, you can email me at: pashley@yahoo.com

------------------
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

Pashley--

Hmmmm, so atheists wouldn't get involved if there were not political implications?

That's not quite it. If I may ....

I was born in 1973, for instance. Much of Christianity had already occurred by the time I learned to stand and sit and kneel when told to and to recite these words. (I suppose that's a little patronizing, but if I could leave that sentiment at It never made any real sense at all, I would be grateful.) Christian history leading up to this point is what brought Christian sentiment to what it was at that point, so that my introduction to the moral battles of American Christianity fell constantly on the wrong side, in my view. Being that they never truly brought me to faith, it was fairly easy to walk away, but not so easy to find a comfortable perspective. But having been born and told "believe this" from the word go, it truly was walking away, and I can never be truly atheist because my first expressions of The Mystery occurred within a theist frame of reference.

All of this testimonial aside, what I'm trying to demonstrate is that my portion of the Christian experience began in media res, as such, and so did yours, or anyone, really, who wasn't there to live the moments and walk with the physical Christ.

So where does an atheist enter the Christian experience? On any given day, the Christian experience is "out there" in the world ... a group of people who think differently from the atheist, who might not have even realized that a word exists that describes his neutral indifference to matters divine. Thus, he's "Joe" until the day he's called on to answer for his God and he says he's never had one. Suddenly he's "Joe the Sinner" or "Joe the Atheist" or "Joe--y'know he always did look suspicious, with those eyes and all ...." ;) And Bobby, his friend of whom Joe has never had cause to ask about God, is suddenly "Bobby the Seventh-Day Adventist", or some-such. Perhaps it never occurs to Joe that he is an "atheist" until he's called upon to vote on a local ballot concening whether or not to teach the myths of one religion as fact in public schools. Or until there's a ballot like Oregon in 1992, when the "Christian duty" was to vote for a horrible measure aimed at disenfranchising (essentially, not totally and really) people based on the matter of whom they slept with. Or hears a woman yell at a school board that God is offended at this or that children's story, which Joe remembers fondly from his own youth. An atheist generally doesn't refer to their self as an atheist until someone asks them to.


...I did want to comment other ideas we've traded:

You seem to be portraying the atheist as a person that is in search of God, but my experience has been the atheist spends his time denying God at every turn. They don't appear open to even allowing for the possibility of God.

Once one becomes aware of one's atheism, perhaps they don't allow for "God". But every good scientist, atheist or otherwise, knows that answers like "The Big Bang" rest on the ability to keep questioning. From my experience, "What came before God" is either a Question We Don't Ask, or is a pat answer about timelessness. However, "What came before the Big Bang?" To that, a familiar answer is, "Stay tuned." Where I see the atheist searching is best illustrated by that. Imagine the Big Bang was a true religion: what would sound different would be that the Big Bang was the will of God. What you likely would not hear, though, in the Western experience, would be: "What came before the Big Bang?" It wouldn't occur to anyone to ask. It brings up a question I learned when Steven Brust wrote of a character that "he never really made it to the top. He made it somewhere and called it the top."

Were the Big Bang religion, and were it "the Answer" or "God", it would seem that we would not have discovered "God", but discovered something and called it "God".

I assert the same for all religions.

The best one can hope for is that dogma allows one to work actively with such difficulties as God vs. Something Called God.

I'm quite aware of the incompleteness of these remarks. We will, with time, work through whatever we need to. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:


------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Pashley,

Mind you, this argument does not prove, even suggest, that there is a God, so please don't rebutt on that. It will assert two points: that the atheism belief is irrational; and that all atheists can only be, at best, pessimistic agnostics.

If you whish to belive that excepting that we do not know and will not know until we die unless there is a major devine show power irrational, well then I would say you are the "irrational" one. Except the uncertainty and you achive the same inner peace that those who "belive" say they achive, and I do mean except not just think about it. It all boils down to a state of mind. What are we really after?

pash-I've been away from the board for a little bit, so please excuse me if I address some old issues.

First, atheism is not baseless. Atheism is based on the belief that there is no extracorporeal entity controlling things so that we mere mortals can learn to become spiritually enlightnened beings, or any other such situation. For my part, I base my beliefs on the fact that I have seen nothing that can be attributed to a god-force and nothing else. The whole mess can run around in circles with me saying that life began as a chemical reaction and some Christian adding "...that God willed...". There is no evidence for God except one's personal beliefs. My chemical reactions, on the other hand, are witnessed in physical reality every day. I can make these chemicals react, just as God supposedly did in the example. Am I equal to God in this respect? Neat-o!

You also claim that the best an atheist can hope to be is a pessimistic agnostic. I am an atheist. I am not pessimistic. Au contraire, I tend to believe the best in people until they prove me wrong. I help when I can, harming only when I must. I believe that there are very few problems that befall the average person that a little tea and sympathy can't heal. I believe the future holds more promise than pain.

I do not believe in God. I believe in cause and effect, and God is not the cause. I am responsible for my own life and fortunes. Any bad situations that come my way are the result of a series of events that happened remotely. There is no God involved.

There is a certain liberation that comes from such beliefs. I liken it to the first time I rode a two-wheeled bike without training wheels. I was free to take my own course. It was a little frightening at first, but when the road opened up before me, the limitless possiblities were worth all the skinned knees and bruises.

Use God if you must. When you can take off the training wheels, come join the rest of us.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Originally posted by tiassa:
Alderian ....

Without jest ... so the best alternative is to not teach anything at all?

If we pick any starting point, and go forward, must we not gain some sense of convention if we are to be anything but a collection of individuals?



tiassa: You have some very interesting thoughts. I was being serious, and so were you. Thank you for responding seriously to a serious subject.

No, I would rather that children not be inculcated with beliefs that are doubtful in the context of a public school. There is plenty that they can be taught. Mathematics, english, geography, etc. In the realm of science one of the first things things they should be taught is that science is ALWAYS "under construction", that no answers are definite and that what we know today may very well change tomorrow. THAT is true about science then and now. To teach ANY scientific truth as if it stands for all time is folly and all scientists know that. THAT is what should be taught about science first, then they can teach the children that they have no answers for things outside the realm of science. That science depends upon things can can be seem and felt and heard.

I think that would be a good start, do you?

Thank you for your responses, they are very well thought out.

Yours,

Adlerian

Originally posted by tiassa:
From my experience, "What came before God" is either a Question We Don't Ask, or is a pat answer about timelessness.

Well, I don't consider it a "pat" answer (although Pat is my name!), to be able to assert and defend the characteristic of timelessness in God. I certainly don't throw it out there as a "it just is" preposition.

...whether or not to teach the myths of one religion as fact in public schools. Or until there's a ballot like Oregon in 1992, when the "Christian duty" was to vote for a horrible measure aimed at disenfranchising (essentially, not totally and really) people based on the matter of whom they slept with. Or hears a woman yell at a school board that God is offended at this or that children's story, which Joe remembers fondly from his own youth. An atheist generally doesn't refer to their self as an atheist until someone asks them to.

Well, it seems you have an issue with people voicing their disapproval of homosexuality, inappropriate reading material for children and the lack of creationism being taught.

But this is fodder for another thread! :)

I would like to focus on the baselessness of atheism.....actually, I think you agreed with me? :)

------------------
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

Originally posted by 666:
Pashley,

If you whish to belive that excepting that we do not know and will not know until we die unless there is a major devine show power irrational, well then I would say you are the "irrational" one. Except the uncertainty and you achive the same inner peace that those who "belive" say they achive, and I do mean except not just think about it. It all boils down to a state of mind. What are we really after?

Because of the numerous typos and lack of a coherent thought, I have no idea what you are asking or asserting. Please rephrase!

Originally posted by Oxygen:

First, atheism is not baseless. Atheism is based on the belief that there is no extracorporeal entity controlling things so that we mere mortals can learn to become spiritually enlightnened beings...For my part, I base my beliefs on the fact that I have seen nothing that can be attributed to a god-force and nothing else. The whole mess can run around in circles with me saying that life began as a chemical reaction and some Christian adding "...that God willed...". My chemical reactions, on the other hand, are witnessed in physical reality every day. I can make these chemicals react, just as God supposedly did in the example.

Well, you've ignored my posit, that since you can't know the existence of every entity, you cannot rationally state, with certainty there is no God. Please address that issue. How do you reconcile that fact into your atheism?

The rest, is fodder for another thread. :)



------------------
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

Pashley: I agree with you.

pashley,

Welcome.

Not only are you incorrect but you appear to have adopted the complete opposite of the truth and have succeeded in being completely incorrect in virtually every aspect of your argument.

QUOTE
Atheism is baseless. …that is, without a solid, rational foundation for the belief.
ENDQUOTE

Strictly speaking your statement is nonsense. Theism is defined as the “belief in a god or gods”. The prefix “a” means “without,” so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism,” or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. Atheism in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who BELIEVES that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god. The distinction is important and is often not recognized by those not familiar with atheism.

QUOTE
Atheists I have encountered come in two varieties; hardcore ('There is certainly no God'), and softcore ('I am very sure, but not dead certain, there is no God.')
ENDQUOTE

The correct terminology is explicit atheism and implicit atheism respectively. Explicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it. Implicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. Your remarks in parenthesis appear to be your own opinions and open to subjective interpretation. Explicit atheism is usually directed at a particular religion such as Christianity and the criticism concerns the particular definitions or properties claimed for the selected deity. In the case of Christianity the explicit or critical atheist believes that the properties claimed for the Christian God are logically impossible and it is this that allows such atheists to state with certainty that the Christian God cannot exist. WITHOUT THIS BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF (HARD CORE) ATHEISM THE REMAINDER OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE LARGELY NONSENSE.

Some examples of logical impossibilities of the Christian God: God is all good – but he created a world where evil exists, so he clearly wanted evil to exist so he cannot be all good. If he was truly all good then by way of his omnipotence he could easily have created a world without evil. But the Christian says how will man know the difference between good and evil? The answer is simple: God by way of his omnipotence could easily have given man the appropriate and full understanding of good and evil. If God was unable to give that understanding then he is not omnipotent. God is omniscient (knows everything that is going to happen), but he says man has free will. If man truly had free will then God would not know what man was going to do next, but that would mean that God was not omniscient. If God is omniscient then man cannot have free will – for instance God knows every decision you are going to make even before you are born, the claim for free will is therefore nonsense. If you claim that it is not possible for us to know why God chose to create a world with evil, then you become an agnostic theist (see my next point). This whole area is worth a topic in its own right and I will eventually – sorry vinnie I haven’t forgotten you.

QUOTE
It is the former which I'd like to address; as far as I am concerned the latter position is just agnosticism. I will assert two points: that the atheism belief is irrational; and that all atheists can only be, at best, pessimistic agnostics.
ENDQUOTE

Your reference to agnosticism is confused, is nonsensical, and appears to be a common misconception of the definition of agnosticism. Gnostic comes from the Greek gnosis ”to know”. Agnostic signifies the impossibility of knowledge in a given area. An agnostic is someone who believes that something is inherently unknowable by the human mind. An agnostic can be either theistic or atheistic it is not a third type of atheism or something that lies part way between theism and atheism. The agnostic theist is someone who believes in a god but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable. The agnostic atheist is someone who maintains that not only is the nature of a supernatural being unknowable but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well.

Everyone is either a theist or an atheist there is no third choice. If you believe in a god, then you are a theist, if you do not believe or have doubts then you are an atheist. The use of the perceived more respectable term of agnosticism to indicate doubt was mistakenly used to avoid the term atheist which could have meant attracting persecution from religious authorities. Even in the first half of the 20th century atheists were not permitted to be witnesses in a US court of law. Fortunately the term atheist is gaining increasing respectability and atheist organizations are growing rapidly throughout the world.

QUOTE
The hard-core atheist position is, that with all certainty, there is NO God, never was, never will be a God.

How does the atheist know?

Has the atheist searched the entire cosmos to know, with certainty, there is no God? No, he has not; and as such, he cannot rationally hold the notion that there is no God.
But does that mean there is no pink unicorns either? Or the tooth fairy? Santa Claus? or even a Buffalo Bills Superbowl championship team?

Mmmm.....well you got me there, good point. We don't need to search the entire cosmos to know that there is no Santa Claus, tooth fairy or pink unicorns.
ENDQUOTE

These are all nonsense statements and are answered in my points above, re: the atheist argument is specifically aimed at the logical impossibilities of the Christian claims.

However, there are some useful comparisons that we can make regarding pink unicorns the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. As you state we don’t need to search for these as we all know that these are human concepts, but lets look at the properties of such non-existent entities. They are all; invisible, immaterial, do not make any sounds, and none of them can be perceived by human senses. These are the same properties of the Christian God. The Christian God seems to fall into the same category as pink unicorns etc. – i.e. does not exist and is simply just another human concept with no basis in reality.

QUOTE
But the difference is this: God, by nature, MUST have an eternal, uncaused nature to be God. If you suggest he came into being, he must have been caused to come into being, which begs the question, who caused Him? A Super-God? No. God by nature, is the eternal being, the being of which no cause could cause. He IS the beginning. There is more to this argument, but the point is, he is eternal, uncaused, timeless.
ENDQUOTE

So please show your evidence. Without evidence your assertion has no value and simply wastes space on my screen. If you cannot provide evidence and if you believe this based on religious faith then you are by definition irrational – see the definitions in my topic on faith and reason.

QUOTE
That is the difference between God and pink unicorns. Pink unicorns don't exist, unless the fifth of Jack Daniels hasn't wore off yet.
ENDQUOTE

I think you must have already had too much to drink.

Christianity has made the claim that a God exists but has not provided any evidence. It is usual in our world for anyone making a claim and wishing other people to accept that claim that they provide a justification and evidence for such claims. Your argument rests on the incorrect assumption that atheists have created an opposing system of claims that must be proved. Please start again.

If you wish to understand more about atheism then you will find another topic in this forum titled “An Introduction to Atheism”. It includes references to the Atheist Alliance web sites where you will find definitions of theistic and atheistic terminology. Also, you might wish to read the book “Atheism The Case Against God by George H. Smith”.

Have fun
Cris

pash-And yet you insist on the existence of a supposed entity that hasn't been seen, felt, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled in the entire history of human existence. The bible is little more than hearsay and cannot qualify as "proof". It's no better than believing in pink unicorns and Santa Claus.

I reconcile your statement in that just because I can't see it doesn't mean that it's there. The lack of evidence in any form doesn't by any definition prove that there is a god. It's like saying "well, since there's no sign of it, it must be real."

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Greetings -

Nice posts, Cris and tiassa.. you summed up what I wanted to say very nicely, so I'm simply going to reiterate it.

pashley -

I am an atheist. However, I haven't always been. Early in life I had amorphous, undefined beliefs in terms of theism. One day, when I was about 12, I stumbled into the message board area of a local BBS. I started reading, and was somewhat shocked at the statements made by religious people in the debate forum. There were generally two types of said religious folk: those who simply said that they believed in a god, and those who tried to prove it. The former were able to share ideas quite freely, even if they weren't agreed with. The latter got blown out of the proverbial water when they tried to go against what was demonstrably true.

This trend is prevalent even in this board. If a person states 'I believe in God', I can't respond with much more than 'I disagree'. However, as soon as they start applying their god to the rest of the world, they hit the brick wall that is science.

When I am debating someone, the principle of my argument can be described in a sentence: "I'm not trying to disprove god, I'm trying to disprove YOUR god."

Now, I do not generally say this.. it would certainly put an offensive spin on the conversation, and I do not intend it to be.

So this is what it comes down to: If all applications of your god fail, then it is nothing more than a concept in your mind (and perhaps the minds of others) that has no logical support. It then has nothing to seperate it from a falsehood or a fantasy.

Sincerely,
FyreStar

Oxygen,

Well, you got off the main point, that Atheism is Baseless, but I'll rebutt, just the same.


Originally posted by Oxygen:
pash-And yet you insist on the existence of a supposed entity that hasn't been seen, felt, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled in the entire history of human existence. The bible is little more than hearsay and cannot qualify as "proof".


I didn't realize that if we can't use our five senses to know something is there, it can't be real. So much for gravity, atoms and radiation.
I believe the point you were trying to make was, "We have never had contact with God."
Has he ever walked into a Hooters and had a beer with the guys? No (but i bet he could get drinks on the house for free!).
But if you believe in the divinity of Christ, then yes, he has interfaced with us, since Jesus was God incarnate. Men knew him, touched him, talked to him, and so on. But, if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, that won't work for you. Fodder for another thread.
Regarding your comment that the Bible is just "hearsay", well, yes and no. The Bible is actully 66 different books, by many different authors. Some, like the book of Matthew, were written from first-hand witnesses of Jesus. The book of Exodus was written by Moses. So, there is both first hand and second hand accounts. If you are suggesting that first-hand witnesses' testimonies can't be trusted, why bother having witnesses in court?

Originally posted by Oxygen:
I reconcile your statement in that just because I can't see it doesn't mean that it's there. The lack of evidence in any form doesn't by any definition prove that there is a god. It's like saying "well, since there's no sign of it, it must be real."



Again, you're way off the OP, which to recapitulate, doesn't sugget nor prove, that there is a God. It is a proof that atheism has no basis.

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Cris,

You're post was quite long, so with your permission, in the interest of brevity, I will sum up your objections:

1)You believe that atheism is not a belief; it is the lack thereof;

2) Explicit atheism and implicit atheism are the the correct terms;

3) The problem of evil, and other concerns about of freewill, being omnipotent;

4) The agnosticism definition;

5) Searching the entire cosmos/ Santa Claus rebuttal;

6) Evidence of God.

REBUTTALS

1) The definition of Atheism, according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Again, a belief there is no deity.

2) I'll accept your definition here, and understand your point. I don't understand why explicit atheism is directed at Christianity and not, say, Judaism.
The use of caps to say the rest of my argument is nonsense is unprofessional and uncalled for. Let's keep it amiable, shall we? Thanks.

3) The problem of evil, and the other concerns you posted would take alot of time to cover. I don't find any of your assertions true, I think you don't understand that evil CAN exist and not negate God as a function of existing. Fodder for another folder, lets' stick to the OP.

4)Your definition of agnosticism, that we cannot know, is true, but only half the story. Again, citing Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

So, we were both correct.

5) The standard rebuttal of "Well, we don't need to search the entire cosmos to know there is no tooth fairy/Santa Claus" is easy to rebutt; it deserves more lengthy disscussion, but to sum-up, none of those other entities share, by defintion, the properties of God, that being, omniscience, omnipotence, being eternal, and so on.

6) The evidence question. Well, if you are looking to put God in a beaker, or against a ruler, forget it, it can't happen. Tools can't reach God, but evidence of his being are real, and possible. I would cite the cosmos as one example. This gets into comological arguments, which I won't do here, getting of the OP, but will at a later time. Can I PROVE God exists? No. Can I give logical arguments and evidence for His being? Yes.

Now, would you like to address the OP?

Can you ever know everything that exists? No. THEREFORE, you can't rationally assert there is no God. You can believe it, but not rationally.

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Nice work, Pash, couldn't have said it better myself... ;)

Adlerian

Originally posted by FyreStar:

...The latter got blown out of the proverbial water when they tried to go against what was demonstrably true.


What are you citing specifically, creationism? Please don't be so ambiguous.

Originally posted by FyreStar:

This trend is prevalent even in this board. If a person states 'I believe in God', I can't respond with much more than 'I disagree'. However, as soon as they start applying their god to the rest of the world, they hit the brick wall that is science.

'Applying their God'? what does that mean? And by the way, there IS only one God, by defintion of God.

Originally posted by FyreStar:

When I am debating someone, the principle of my argument can be described in a sentence: "I'm not trying to disprove god, I'm trying to disprove YOUR god."

...which begs the question, "What are the differences between your God and mine?"


Originally posted by FyreStar:

So this is what it comes down to: If all applications of your god fail, then it is nothing more than a concept in your mind (and perhaps the minds of others) that has no logical support. It then has nothing to seperate it from a falsehood or a fantasy.



All applications? Example?

And why do you presume to know my ideas regarding the nature of God?

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Hi pashley,

There are often some very long posts in this forum – too long sometimes, mine was fairly short by comparison. But if there is a lot to say then??? Unfortunately I believe you are trying to over-simplify the atheist position and I feel it is important to provide you with a more appropriate point of view, hence this is another moderately long post. I have tried not to ramble unnecessarily, and I hope you find the text informative and useful.

Dictionary definitions are fine and I use them myself here but they just give an introduction to the essence of meaning, and may not always be accurate when viewed with deeper understanding. We should have gone beyond mere dictionary definitions at this point in our discussion and I would strongly recommend that you look into more exacting and penetrating material written by those who live and practice the experience of atheism. There are many more types of atheism than we have introduced here and there are books that cover that. I recommend you at least view the Introduction to Atheism section of the website http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/ it is quite informative and genuinely attempts to be impartial.

If you have based your argument purely on a dictionary definition then you have misunderstood the real issues and you are unlikely to be able to engage many of us in a meaningful debate. Similarly for your understanding of agnosticism, try taking a deeper look, if you have time.

I think you missed part of my definition on explicit atheism, and I quote “Explicit atheism is usually directed at a particular religion such as Christianity”. The reference to Christianity here is, I hope you can see, just an example. You are correct in that other types of explicit atheism will be directed at different religions and will follow different arguments, and that was my point. I chose to pursue the Christianity argument in this topic because that is the primary religion in the countries where I have lived and of which I have the most knowledge out of all religions. And I have assumed that you are a Christian, so it seems relevant. Note that the terms ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ are often used in place of ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’.

If you feel at any time that my tone or wording seems offensive then please ignore it. Abruptness usually indicates shortness of time, but feel assured I never mean any intentional offense. However, I will attack what I believe is a false argument, but you should not take that personally. I will be wrong at times and if you can show that then I hope I am honest enough to accept your logic (if true), in the same way I hope you can react in a similar fashion.

I agree the issues of Omni<something>s require far more extensive discussion, much of which already exists and is embedded in a variety of posts in this forum, but I think will be worth exploring further again. My current plan, which is in part an answer to a request from Vinnie, is to post a new topic “Omniscience and Free Will”. I believe that Christianity has never been able to make a reasonable argument to support this issue, and if you are game enough to accept the challenge then this could be a good experience for us. There are many other issues that the atheist such as myself can level at Christianity, some of which I have hinted at in my post, but all could justify their own topics, and which I hope to post eventually. The next should probably be the issue of evil but this has already been covered in some detail in this forum. Perhaps as there are now new people arriving it might be worthwhile covering the issues again. The arguments have lasted quite a few centuries already so another repeat here won’t do any harm.

I think the issue on non-existent entities is that since they don’t exist it is perfectly acceptable to assign them any properties. For example, I think that maybe pink unicorns are in fact omniscient and omnipotent, but that they don’t use these abilities very often. As with any human imaginative concept not based on reality any property you assign no matter how grandiose is equally meaningless. The real issue is whether there is any evidence for any of these properties, and from my perspective there isn’t – whether they are pink unicorns or gods, or the Christian God.

Here is a short extract from the website quoted above. I hope it helps clarify for you the way real atheists see their views. I have deleted some text that I feel is not relevant to our current discussion.

__________________________________________________ _____________________
"Isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that such a God could exist. Others are atheists through scepticism, because they see no evidence that God exists.

There are a number of books which lay out a philosophical justification for atheism, such as Martin's "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" and Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God".

Of course, some people are atheists without having any particular logical argument to back up their atheism. For some, it is simply the most comfortable, common sense position to take.

"But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?"

There are many counter-examples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.

However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the non-existence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.

If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.

Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption, which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the skeptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.

Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.

"What is agnosticism then?"

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists.

Since that time, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on the original definition be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the second definition be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

Final notes from me.

For an atheist to state that a particular god does not exist will mean that they believe they have an appropriate rational justification for their claim. Note that the claim will be directed at a particular religion and the claims made for that deity. If the atheist believes she can show that the claims made for a particular deity are contradictory then it usually follows that the remaining claims will fall apart. For example, if I could show that omniscience is impossible then omnipotence would not be meaningful either. In this case the atheist is justified in stating that such a deity certainly cannot exist because of the stated paradox. And here we are trying to show something of the form ‘I cannot travel north and south at the same time'’.

So the basis for my atheism is that I believe that the claims made by Christians for their God are contradictory and paradoxical and hence I am certain that such a god as claimed cannot and does not exist.

Enough for now I think.

Have fun
Cris

Pashley,

Now to respond to your assertion statements -

1. Can you ever know everything that exists? No.
2. THEREFORE, you can't rationally assert there is no God.
3. You can believe it, but not rationally.

Statement 1 is concerned with the scope of knowledge. I will accept the statement as a valid postulate.

Statement 2 attempts to link the postulate concerning properties of knowledge with properties concerning God (existence or non-existence). To succeed it must first be accepted as a postulate that the definition of God is acceptable as knowledge. This link has not been established. Therefore the logic is invalid at this stage.

Statement 3 is a call to faith, i.e. belief in something without reason. At this point statement 3 has no meaning because the logic has failed at statement 2.

To make the assertions valid it will be necessary to add a new statement between statements 1 and 2 that will establish the Christian definition of God as acceptable knowledge. E.g. God is defined as “a” and “b”, etc. where “a” and “b”, etc are established facts.

The claimed properties of God include omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc. among others. The atheist claims that these properties are largely self contradictory with both each other and the observed physical world such that the definition of God is invalid. They describe something that is paradoxical and rationally impossible. To accept something as knowledge requires valid definitions based on reason and facts (rational argument). See my dictionary definitions for these terms in the topic on Faith and Reason. The atheist claims that the definition of God is not rational but the Christians claim the definition as true based on faith in spite of reason.

And here we come to the crux of the argument between Christians and atheists. As I have stated in my topic on Faith and Reason, the issues are less about whether God exists or not but more about how we establish knowledge. The argument is essentially one of epistemology. I.e. can knowledge ever be established based on faith or should it always be based on reason? Once this issue is resolved then it will be possible to discuss the existence or non-existence of the Christian God.

Have fun.
Cris

Cris, you certainly are intelligent and articulate. Thank you for the enlightening post. However, I do have a problem with using what a group of people or a singular person says when they define their own terms regarding themselves. I believe therein lies the path of error and ignorance. Dictionaries and lexicons are sources we turn to when we are trying to make judgments about things. I NEVER trust anyone's word who says things like, "Well the dictionary has it all wrong, we Satanists are a very moral people, who are charitable and hospitable and love people, we just worship Satan, that's all. Besides, the dictionaries were written by Christians and they always try to paint us in a bad light." Yada yada yada blah blah blah. I've heard it all before.

Sorry it doesn't sell. You are very intelligent though. When I get the time I'll write down some questions for you. You seem to have thought about this issue quite thoroughly and would be able to help me understand some things.

Long post but VERY Good!

Yours,

Adlerian

pashley -

Did you read what I wrote, or did you simply scan it and try to guess the content?

**pashley: "What are you citing, specifically, creationism? Please don't be so ambiguous."

Well, considering that it was a direct reference to the people on that BBS who tried to prove their god, no. No ambiguity there.

**pashley: "'Applying their God'? what does that mean? And by the way, there IS only one God, by defintion of God."

Sorry pal, your 'God' isn't my god. Neither was theirs. I guess you really need me to spell out the application bit.. so here goes.
In choosing the manner of their faith, people must make a choice; they must decide whether it is their own personal faith, or that which they must attempt to foist upon others. Example: If you believe the earth was created over the course of a week, is only several thousand years old, and that man has been here since then, you are welcome to that belief. If you try to tell me that, however, I would be only too happy to prove you wrong.
By taking the concept of your personal faith, and saying that we should believe it even though it would force a logical contradiction (i.e. an impossibility), you are commiting a crime against the mind of man, and will inevitably be shot down by people you dub 'hardcore' atheists.

**pashley: "...which begs the question, "What are the differences between your God and mine?""

Well, since I do not acknowledge the existence of any god, it all depends on what you believe.

**pashley: "All applications? Example? And why do you presume to know my ideas regarding the nature of God? "

The examples are really up to you.. if you think you can prove the existence of a god, be my guest. Make sure you know what 'to prove' means though. As for presumption, I simply don't. I don't know what your religious views are. What I can see is that you assumed a hostile tone in my writing, and assumed that 'your's were directed solely at yourself. For clarity's sake, reread the passage, switching out "your" for "one's". I apologize for not making this clearer.

I'd also like to respond to something you said to Cris.

**pashley: "I don't understand why explicit atheism is directed at Christianity and not, say, Judaism. "

This is easy to expalin; First, Christianity is the dominant religion most of the advanced countries. Second, the advanced countries are much more likely to allow freedom of religion. America is the perfect example, the country in which this message board, and proabably a majority of its regulars are located. It is simply conflict with the largest and most efficacious group around.

Sincerely,
FyreStar

Adlerian -

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

**Adlerian: "However, I do have a problem with using what a group of people or a singular person says when they define their own terms regarding themselves. I believe therein lies the path of error and ignorance. Dictionaries and lexicons are sources we turn to when we are trying to make judgments about things. I NEVER trust anyone's word who says things like, "Well the dictionary has it all wrong, we Satanists are a very moral people, who are charitable and hospitable and love people, we just worship Satan, that's all. Besides, the dictionaries were written by Christians and they always try to paint us in a bad light." Yada yada yada blah blah blah. I've heard it all before."

So basically, you are saying this; if a person calls himself something, you whip out your handy-dandy dictionary, read a few lines, and pronounce judgement on that person without bothering to see what he is like. MY dictionary defines Satanism as 'Satan worship'. To me, there is no difference between that and 'God worship'. It tells me nothing about the person other than what they feel is a superior being. So, based on some arbitrary nomenclature, you've condemned somebody as ignorant and in error. I don't think I've ever heard a case for prejudice argued so blatantly. Let me repeat something;

**Adlerian "I do have a problem with using what a group of people or a singular person says when they define their own terms regarding themselves. "

Pardon me, but what in the hell else should we use? The judgement, or blanket-terms of people trying to stuff everybody into nice little categories? You are saying that THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS. Just groups.

Do you realize that people who put forth your philosophy were proponents of slavery, religious persecution, and the Holocaust?

FyreStar

Cris,

Your fingers must be very tired!!! :)

I will compliment you on your willingness to keep this 'conversation' amiable, and not use deragotory or rude remarks, nor an arrogant tone, which I seem to get from other atheists.

As far as definitions go, it seems to get a little convoluted; but i think we can agree that there is quite a chasm in beliefs between a theist and (let's say) a "non-theist." The theist, of course, believes in the existence of one God, be it the Christian God, the Jewish God, or what have you. The "non-theist", is either not sure, holds we cannont know for sure, may think there is one, but not one described by any current religion, or just doesn't believe there is one. Either way, the difference between the theist and others is there. For me, it is the greatest question of all; is there a God, or not? What else is more important?

I would love to get into the "Omnis" issue, as well. The issue of evil is really a favorite, because I believe so many people don't believe in God, because of this very issue.

I think the issue on non-existent entities is that since they don’t exist it is perfectly acceptable to assign them any properties. For example, I think that maybe pink unicorns are in fact omniscient and omnipotent, but that they don’t use these abilities very often. As with any human imaginative concept not based on reality any property you assign no matter how grandiose is equally meaningless. The real issue is whether there is any evidence for any of these properties, and from my perspective there isn’t – whether they are pink unicorns or gods, or the Christian God.

I think what you are trying to say, is that since we can't 'prove' God, it's easy to just fling a couple of wonderful "Omnis" onto Him. Further, you can assign Omnis to any entity, yet that entity doesn't exist. Lastly, you want proof of the existence of the properties of Omnis.

This has to lead us to the nature of God. What qualities must the God have, necessarily? Can we know His qualities? I think by examining his effects on the world, yes, we can understand qualities of him. If a big wake rolls into shore, a big ship surely made it (to use a loose analogy).

Now from there, we would get further in the nature of God, with the omnis and so on.

So the basis for my atheism is that I believe that the claims made by Christians for their God are contradictory and paradoxical and hence I am certain that such a god as claimed cannot and does not exist.

This interests me, and would like to delve into it more. If you'd like to start a thread, we could debate the contradictions and paradoxs you are concerned about.




------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

pashley,

Excellent. A good basis for a healthy debate. It may be a few days before I post my proposed topic though.

Take care
Cris

Originally posted by FyreStar:


Look, you can't just pigeon-hole people like that. Some people believe, keep it to themselves; some believe and fellowship with others; and some believe and are witnessing all over the place. By no means am I that legalistic when it comes to the Bible, either. The creation story you cited can also be interperted as 7 events, not necessarily 7 days proper.

Originally posted by FyreStar:
[B}
By taking the concept of your personal faith, and saying that we should believe it even though it would force a logical contradiction (i.e. an impossibility), you are commiting a crime against the mind of man, and will inevitably be shot down by people you dub 'hardcore' atheists.

Ok, so you have a problem with people of faith voicing their faith. You don't want to be force-fed rules and regulations that you think believing in God would imply. So you just deny there is a God. I think that is the basis of your atheism, sir, not "logical contradictions" you throw out callously, not even citing one example. You pick a so-called contradiction, I'll debate it.

As far as 'proving' God exists, I've stated at least once, I cannot do so. I can give great arguments that will move the rational person to the existence side of the issue, and that's about it. I can't run out and get you a can of "God".

It's not my intent to come across belligerent. But I don't lay down if I feel I am being unfairly assailed, either. Look at the way "Cris" and I are trying to handle ourselves; we have a pretty big chasm between us, but hopefully each of us will learn something about the opposite sides' view, and do so respectfully. I'd ask you to do the same, please! I want to.



------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Cris,

Your post at the top of the page caused me to think deeply, thanks.

I suppose you are wondering what I came up with?!

Ok.

My proof of atheism, stated in the OP, has been compromised...to a degree. Actually, a modification would probabley be better.

I asked the atheist to enter the warehouse, and look around for the nice man with the long beard and white robe. But that is an impossible task, not because the atheist can't search the entire warehouse; it's because he should be looking for something none of he senses can sense; something only his mind can touch and his heart can feel.

Nevertheless (you didn't think I'd give in that easy!), I think the basis of the argument holds, that being you cannot know everything that is "out there", so you can't state "x" is not out there. Especially when it comes to God, his "omni" qualities that we'll get into.....

Again, not pink unicorns, but the qualities of God that seperate Him from any other 'thing' you want to dream up, that those things cannot have.

The discussion continues.....


------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley,

Good enough; I suspect that may not have been an easy thing to say. You have my respect. However, the real issues are likely to be a lot more intense, and truth should be our goal. I see myself as a novice in these discussions and I expect to learn a great deal by researching the arguments and debating the responses. Individual pride and arrogance should have no place in such matters, but they do too often and prevent potentially great thinkers from seeing the truth.


Until the next post.
Cris

pashley -

Perhaps you could explain to me why I can't "pigeon-hole" people like that. There are those that spout their unprovable beliefs, and those that don't. How is this not clear?

**pashley: "Ok, so you have a problem with people of faith voicing their faith. You don't want to be force-fed rules and regulations that you think believing in God would imply. So you just deny there is a God."

I don't know if you're doing this on accident, or just to be offensive. I cannot deny the existence of an undefinable, undetectable, unlocatable deity. What I can deny and disprove is any attempt to substitute a deity for something else, something we know. What people tend to forget is that if a god is undefinable, undectatable, and unlocatable, they have no way of knowing of its existence. That is your contradiction, or rather the attempt at it.

**pashley: "As far as 'proving' God exists, I've stated at least once, I cannot do so. I can give great arguments that will move the rational person to the existence side of the issue, and that's about it. I can't run out and get you a can of "God"."

Well, theres your problem. This is the fundamental mystical problem. A rational person will not accept your arguments precisely because you cannot prove it. You aren't asking for rationality, you are asking somebody to take it on your word that there is something they, by definition, cannot detect.

It is not my intent to come across as hostile either. I am not angered by your posts. However, I too feel that I am being unfairly assailed, as a proponent of man's mind and reason. It may seem offensive, but I will not back down from or compromise with that which is wrong.

Sincerely,
FyreStar

Pash-You have yet to prove that atheism is baseless. As far as atoms and whatnot, we can perceive them individually through technology, or we can see them as a mass, but we can prove they are there. The belief in a god is only a matter of whether or not you want to find out the true source of things. Do the winds blow because a diety has exhaled, or because high and low pressure areas have moved and the cold or warm air is rushing in?

I do not believe in God. I am here as a result of chemical reactions, not divine intervention. Amino acids and raging hormones conspired to get me here. If you ask where the amino acids and hormones came from, I could explain that they are the result of various chemicals or combinations as easily as the faithful could say that God put them there, and both claims would be equally solid, except that the chemicals can be traced back physically and empirically proven without resorting to the mystic, spiritual, or esoteric.

I do not believe in the divinty of Jesu ben Josef. I believe that, if he existed, we was a human being and a charismatic leader. He had a temper, he had emotions, and he took squats in the bushes. (If he ate chili, it became the "burning bush"... ;)). That is my belief, and I do not intend to sway you over to my side. I am defending my beliefs.

:DOh, and in response to God walking into Hooters, I'm reminded of an oooolllllldd one:
God, Jesus, and a rabbi walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says "What is this, a joke?"

I know, leave the comedy to the professionals. :D

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Hi!

I'll be away on vacation from Wednsday, the 10th until Saturday the 20th. I will visting my sister in the Fort Myers area, then on to DisneyWorld! I'll chat with you later!

-Patrick

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Originally posted by FyreStar:
Perhaps you could explain to me why I can't "pigeon-hole" people like that. There are those that spout their unprovable beliefs, and those that don't. How is this not clear?

Well, you did say "foist upon others", or they keep it to themselves, and I gave you other scenarios. When it comes to behavior, it's difficult to just say people are "this" or "that". Also, beliefs are usually quite malleable.

Originally posted by FyreStar:
I cannot deny the existence of an undefinable, undetectable, unlocatable deity. What I can deny and disprove is any attempt to substitute a deity for something else, something we know. What people tend to forget is that if a god is undefinable, undectatable, and unlocatable, they have no way of knowing of its existence. That is your contradiction, or rather the attempt at it.

You're right, you cannot deny Him! :)
What would Freud say about that slip up?

And no, God is not "undefineable" and "undetectable". Can we ever truly know all of God's nature? No, we have finite minds. He is infinite. Can we detect him? No, not in the sense of using a mass spectrometer, or whatever tool you want to use. But I believe, and will argue, that we can detect him through logical arguments. We can know His nature by the "bread crumbs" he has left. Of course, the faithful will "detect" him thru faith alone.

Originally posted by FyreStar:
A rational person will not accept your arguments precisely because you cannot prove it. You aren't asking for rationality, you are asking somebody to take it on your word that there is something they, by definition, cannot detect.

No, that's not what I am asserting. If I went thru an old abandoned warehouse, find a package, open it, and find a beautiful painting, a wondeful landscape, painted with oils, is it not logical to assume, that a human painted it? Or would you rather assume a dog did it? Or, would you rather say that no one did it? The point is, if we have evidence, it is not unreasonable to assume the evidence was caused by a causing agent.

Do I sense an anger from you because you feel people are trying to force you to believe something? If you don't believe it, fine, just let it go.

Let me make my arguments. If you'd like to debate, like cris is doing, calmly, rationally, without malice or anger, that would be great! :)



------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

And no, God is not "undefineable" and "undetectable". Can we ever truly know all of God's nature? No, we have finite minds. He is infinite. Can we detect him? No, not in the sense of using a mass spectrometer, or whatever tool you want to use. But I believe, and will argue, that we can detect him through logical arguments. We can know His nature by the "bread crumbs" he has left. Of course, the faithful will "detect" him thru faith alone.

I believe you have made a certain point that needs to be made.

The religious faithful will detect God through faith alone. The scientific faithful will detect something with sensors and equations in which they have faith. There is a small difference between these faiths: I cannot yet devise experimental conditions to demonstrate a Process of God, unless we call all events observed in this Universe as a Process of God.

Something makes a rock fall to the ground. We call it gravity and devise equations about how it works on the planet and in the universe.

Something defies our explanation, so we call it God and devise rules to govern human conduct.

I see a faith aspect in atheism and its propensity for the scientific method; but that faith is demonstrably justifiable because I can show you what I'm talking about (as is the case with gravity; for those fans of super-string theory, watch ice freeze).

The "bread crumbs" of the scientific search are the particles and forces of physics, the methods of biology, and the common processes of the universe. I highly recommend the current Scientific American (cover story on metallic hydrogen) and, I believe, the current American Scientist (Sigma Xi; cover story on molecular machines).

It's not like anyone's been starving the ducks, or, as such, the sheep. The bread crumbs are there. Since I'm already mixing metaphors that badly, I might remind that: "You can lead a horse to water . . . ." ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Originally posted by Oxygen:
You have yet to prove that atheism is baseless. As far as atoms and whatnot, we can perceive them individually through technology, or we can see them as a mass, but we can prove they are there.

I think I've proved my point. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

The point about the atoms: you said "supposed entity that hasn't been seen, felt, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled in the entire history of human existence" and my point was things exist outside our tactile reach, like atoms.

Originally posted by Oxygen:
The belief in a god is only a matter of whether or not you want to find out the true source of things. Do the winds blow because a diety has exhaled, or because high and low pressure areas have moved and the cold or warm air is rushing in?

Yes, didn't you know that?! :)

No, of course not. BUT, one has to has to ask himself about the original cause of all these things...and I don't mean just going back one step! Go back all the steps. This cosmological argument I will be getting into soon!

Originally posted by Oxygen:
I do not believe in God. I am here as a result of chemical reactions, not divine intervention. Amino acids and raging hormones conspired to get me here. If you ask where the amino acids and hormones came from, I could explain that they are the result of various chemicals or combinations as easily as the faithful could say that God put them there, and both claims would be equally solid, except that the chemicals can be traced back physically and empirically proven without resorting to the mystic, spiritual, or esoteric.?

Again, fodder for a forth coming cosomological argument. But, you reminded me of a great story, that kind of shows the point of the cosmological argument:

This famous genetic scientist dies. He goes before the pearly gates. Many people waiting. He goes up to St. Peter and demands to see God. St. Peter gets God on the line, God says to send him right over.
In a flash, the scientist is in front of The Almighty. He waves his finger at God, and says, "You know, we people don't need you anymore, God. We can do lots of great things now, like genetic manipulation. We can determine the sex, eye color, virtually any aspect of the child!" God thinks about that a minute, and says, "Ok, I see your point. Are you a betting man?" Nervously, the cocky scientist says, "Well sure. What's the bet?" God says, "I'm going to show you how I first created man. Then, I'm going to ask you to do it too. If you can, I'll admit you to Heaven. If not...." and God looks downward. "Easy" says the scientist. "I've done this a hundred times." God reaches down, grabs some clay, squeezes it, unfolds his hand, and there is a man. "Your turn" says God. The scientist thinks this is going to be a cinch. He reaches down, grabs some clay -
"Uh, no, get your own clay" God says.

Originally posted by Oxygen:
I do not believe in the divinty of Jesu ben Josef. I believe that, if he existed, we was a human being and a charismatic leader. He had a temper, he had emotions, and he took squats in the bushes. (If he ate chili, it became the "burning bush"... ;)). That is my belief, and I do not intend to sway you over to my side. I am defending my beliefs.

Ok, fine. I agree with you, except for the divinty issue :)






------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

pashley -

**pashley: "You're right, you cannot deny Him!
What would Freud say about that slip up?"

That isn't a slip, my friend. What you don't seem to realize is that if I cannot deny a god by any means due to a principle of his supposed existence, neither can you prove him by any means.

**pashley: "But I believe, and will argue, that we can detect him through logical arguments."

Then you simply do not understand the basis of logic. Logic, as Ayn Rand so often puts it, is the art of non-contradictory identification. The two important parts of that are 'non-contradictory' and 'identification'. You cannot identify god, nor can you deduce him from 'logical arguments'. Ultimately, you must accept a deity on a feeling, a belief, or a choice to abandon logic.

**pashley: "If I went thru an old abandoned warehouse, find a package, open it, and find a beautiful painting, a wondeful landscape, painted with oils, is it not logical to assume, that a human painted it?"

I've heard this far too many times, so I might as well put an end to it here. You skip several important logical steps in this implication of a deity. You must first assume or prove the existence of humans before you can go through the steps to determine whether they caused the painting. So, you must first assume the existence of a god to assume that a god created the universe. Therefore, since you have already assumed what you are trying to prove, you invalidate the argument.

**pashley: "Do I sense an anger from you because you feel people are trying to force you to believe something? If you don't believe it, fine, just let it go."

I'm not quite sure why you sense anger from me. I suppose its just the way in which I compose these posts.. either way, I assure you I bear no anger towards you. As for rationality, if you can find a logical flaw in my arguments, point it out..

Sincerely,
FyreStar


[This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited May 08, 2000).]

Originally posted by tiassa:

The religious faithful will detect God through faith alone. The scientific faithful will detect something with sensors and equations in which they have faith. There is a small difference between these faiths: I cannot yet devise experimental conditions to demonstrate a Process of God, unless we call all events observed in this Universe as a Process of God.


Well, I guess I could make that argument, calling all events a process of God, because He started the whole thing! A good intro to my next topic, a cosmological argument. I think this thread has pretty much run it's course.

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Originally posted by FyreStar:
Then you simply do not understand the basis of logic. Logic, as Ayn Rand so often puts it, is the art of non-contradictory identification. The two important parts of that are 'non-contradictory' and 'identification'. You cannot identify god, nor can you deduce him from 'logical arguments'. Ultimately, you must accept a deity on a feeling, a belief, or a choice to abandon logic.

Well, I disagree. God can be detected from logical arguments, as I will show in the cosmological argument thread when I come back from vacation. Also, some of his nature can be gleaned from what he has done.

Originally posted by FyreStar:
**pashley: "If I went thru an old abandoned warehouse, find a package, open it, and find a beautiful painting, a wondeful landscape, painted with oils, is it not logical to assume, that a human painted it?"

I've heard this far too many times, so I might as well put an end to it here. You skip several important logical steps in this implication of a deity. You must first assume or prove the existence of humans before you can go through the steps to determine whether they caused the painting. So, you must first assume the existence of a god to assume that a god created the universe. Therefore, since you have already assumed what you are trying to prove, you invalidate the argument.

Well, first, I think we can all agree humans exist, can't we (LOL!)! Do you want to challenge that, and get into a non-productive existential quagmire? C'mon. And BTW, there was no implication of a deity in that argument. The core of that argument is cause and effect, again, leading into my cosmological argument. I'm going to have a tough time with you in that thread, aren't I? :)



------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

pashley -

**pashley: "God can be detected from logical arguments, as I will show in the cosmological argument thread when I come back from vacation. "

I'd like to see it.

**pashley: "Well, first, I think we can all agree humans exist, can't we (LOL!)! "

You missed the entire point! What I showed was that the existence of the painting does not prove the existence of humanity. Furthermore, since, as you said, we can't seem to 'put god in a can', we cannot do the same in your argument.

As for cause and effect.. When we observe an effect, we can say that there was a cause. However, before we can attribute it to a particular cause, we must first prove the existence of that cause, and then prove that it could be only that particular cause. It all comes back to the Law of Identity.

**pashley: "I'm going to have a tough time with you in that thread, aren't I?"

You bet :)

Sincerely,
FyreStar

Although you cleanse the outside, inside you are filled with plunder and evil. Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside? As to what is within, give alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you.

You pay your tithes and taxes but you pay no attention to judgement and to love for God. These you should do without overlooking the others. You love seats of honor and greetings in marketplaces. Woe to you! You are like unseen graves over which people unknowingly walk.

You impose on people burdens hard to carry but you do not lift one finger to touch them. You build the memorials of the prophets whom your ancestors killed. Consequently, you bear witness and give consent to the deeds of your ancestors, for they killed them and you do the building.

Yes, I tell you, this generation will be charged with their blood!

Woe to you, scholars of the law! You have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not enter and you stopped those trying to enter.

------------------
This is The Word of God

Word,

all I see is death and destruction. Your words are like trumpets of chaos. If you do not sway from your stance, this is the ultimate outcome of fudamentalism.

Fyrestar: The meaning of words change constantly. The job of lexicographers is to make dictionaries reflect the meanings of words current with the times. The way in which all of us understand reality is by generalization and individualization. If you can that judgement, we are all guilty. It’s just that I have found that many people that belong to certain categories choose to euphemize the meaning of their particular group. Whenever you “pigeon-hole” someone you are placing him or her in a group. If they say that they belong to that group they have “pigeon-holed” themselves. It was not my intention to offend, far from it. For some reason what I said struck a nerve. I find that interesting. Every person is an individual that belongs to many different groups. I find nothing judgmental about that unless you mean: Judgement: The capacity to assess situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions; good sense. American Heritage Dictionary.

A good case can be made for the confusion some in the scientific community create when they misuse the word "evolution". They start they argument with the meaning "change in the allele frequencies" and later in the argument they change their meaning to " man evolved from apelike creatures". We all need to be as careful as we can with the words we use. Anything less causes problems.

Word,
Perhaps your intentions are meant in the best way...BUT, I feel that all you are accomplishing is pushing people further away... as someone said in another thread it would be best if you could be somewhat more "real".

One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.

------------------
This is The Word of God

Flash--

It seems I forgot to say "Welcome" when I saw your name in another post.

Or maybe I thought you were gone for longer than you were. Anyway, nice to see you 'round these days. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Adlerian -

First of all, your dictionary stinks. :) The definition of judgement, most obviously is 'the act of judging'. It does NOT imply good sense, nor does it imply sound conclusions. The KKK judges all blacks to be bad.. would you consider that good and sound?
Second, you are hiding behind so-called 'changing meanings'. What you did with your example, and implied that you do consistantly is judge people based on nothing more than what your own biases insist that their names mean, and what your so-named Heretic to English dictionary tells you. By doing that you seperate humanity's varieties into a few easy to digest forms.
I agree that we must be careful with our words; however, words are not the be-all end-all of existence. They are merely concrete representations of concepts. You are simply finding a way of generalizing that isn't immediately obvious.
If you had objective, constant definitions used by objective people, and then considered them without personal bias (with which your statement about satanism is loaded), such rules might apply.
I know it wasn't your intention to offend, and I was not offended. Shocked, perhaps, and disappointed, but not offended. The 'nerve' you struck was my respect for individualism.


[This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited May 11, 2000).]

Fryestar: Interestingly you seem to gravitate to individualism when you, like me, belong to certain groups. If generalization didn't work we would be unable to know anything. And marketing, particularly POLITICAL marketing, wouldn't work. It does and that is how elections are won, focus groups and poll-taking. Demographically speaking, it works. If that shocks you, then I am shocked, for I KNOW you are brighter than that. The dictionary I used is a common one. I should have chosen a better example.

How about this one? Would you let the members of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) define themselves? Or would you rather a dictionary do it? Being a member of that organization carries with it certain unsavory baggage. I hope that doesn't shock you as well. ;) Being a Satanist also carries with it unsavory baggage that most intelligent people understand. I know very few parents who would let a Satanist babysit for them or housesit for them or even watch their pets while they are on vacation. If that shocks you as well, than I am shocked too. Ratiocination is born of common sense, as when you use the term, judgement. "She has good judgement" is a compliment to a person, perhaps that meant that she as a attactive blonde female she didn't walk down a dimly lit street in an all Negro neighborhood in the middle of the night.

Just some thoughts to brighten your day! ;)

Hey Tiassa :)
Awwwwww...thank you for the welcome back. That was very sweet. It's good to see that you are still here!! You have a way of cracking me up ...you are too funny my good man.
Take care,
Flash

Adlerian -

You are still missing the point. Dictionaries give definitions, but not in the vast, morally encompassing way you seem to think. If they do, they are prejudiced.

If people don't allow Satanists, for example, to babysit their kids simply because they are Satanists, thats ridiculous. If I had kids that needed babysitting, I would try to find the best person for the job, whatever their religious beliefs. I wouldn't let a militant Satanists watch my kids, but neither would I let an overzealous Christian watch them. To make each judgement, I would have to meet and know something about the people involved beyond their titles. If I hear that some person is labelled as 'Has Good Judgement', I wouldn't let them near my kids until I had verified that.

You still don't seem to realize what you are doing. You evidently have some hatred or disgust for certain groups, and you use that to validate your own moral stereotyping. How is that different from the mindsets that caused slavery and genocide?

FyreStar

You are still missing the point. Dictionaries give definitions, but not in the vast, morally encompassing way you seem to think. If they do, they are prejudiced.

If people don't allow Satanists, for example, to babysit their kids simply because they are Satanists, thats ridiculous. If I had kids that needed babysitting, I would try to find the best person for the job, whatever their religious beliefs. I wouldn't let a militant Satanists watch my kids, but neither would I let an overzealous Christian watch them. To make each judgement, I would have to meet and know something about the people involved beyond their titles. If I hear that some person is labelled as 'Has Good Judgement', I wouldn't let them near my kids until I had verified that.

You still don't seem to realize what you are doing. You evidently have some hatred or disgust for certain groups, and you use that to validate your own moral stereotyping. How is that different from the mindsets that caused slavery and genocide?

FyreStar:

Please elaborate on this:

Dictionaries give definitions, but not in the vast, morally encompassing way you seem to think. If they do, they are prejudiced.

If people don't allow Satanists, for example, to babysit their kids simply because they are Satanists, thats ridiculous. If I had kids that needed babysitting, I would try to find the best person for the job, whatever their religious beliefs.

Evidently you don't have children. It would be wiser to say what you would or would not do in a given situation when you have the opportunity to be in the that situation, to say otherwise is to speculate and assume.

You evidently have some hatred or disgust for certain groups, and you use that to validate your own moral stereotyping.

Please name the various groups you embrace.

What are your feelings for religious fundamentalists? What about the KKK? You seem to have some animosity toward them or you wouldn't have said, "The KKK judges all blacks to be bad.. " such statements are judgmental. How many KKK members have you known personally? So you think it is wise to judge them on hearsay?

As far as my feelings about groups are concern, I eshew them all with equal disdain including the ones I belong to.

You seem to be under the misperception that to embrace groups is to be morally sound. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Gangs and mob mentality are born of groups. Like dogs they run in packs. Vicious and untamable they produce most of the misery and sorrow we as a human race has experienced.

Groups are known by the similar attributes they possess amoung the members of the groups in toto. When I dislike a certain attribute that the group has I do not like the group.

This is a long list: Religious fundamentalists, whites, blacks, women, men, children, dogs, cats, Homophobes, Gays, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum.

Do ya get me, sweetheart? :)

As far as my actions toward others are concerned I weigh what I know about the group they belong to and watch to see if they as an individual either retain the attribute or not, then based on that I interact with them accordingly. As far as personal safety is concerned, I don't place myself in dangerous or injurious situations whenever I can help it. That is the mandate of common sense. I am not tolerant of groups I am tolerant of individuals. Each is judged according to their actions as far as the mandates of common sense will allow. Is that clear to you?

Adlerian

Adlerian -

**Adlerian: "It would be wiser to say what you would or would not do in a given situation when you have the opportunity to be in the that situation, to say otherwise is to speculate and assume."

Well, not for those of us who have solid principles. But anyways, you are basically calling me a liar here, so I won't bother to respond.

**Adlerian: "You seem to be under the misperception that to embrace groups is to be morally sound. "

Glad to see you've been reading my posts...

**Adlerian: "Please name the various groups you embrace"

My friends, my family, and people who share my views.

**Adlerian: "As far as my actions toward others are concerned I weigh what I know about the group they belong to and watch to see if they as an individual either retain the attribute or not, then based on that I interact with them accordingly. "

Now that you've turned almost 180 degrees, we have little to discuss.

One more thing maybe..

**Adlerian: "Gangs and mob mentality are born of groups. Like dogs they run in packs. Vicious and untamable they produce most of the misery and sorrow we as a human race has experienced."

And thats exactly what you were trying to do to people: group them.

Ok one more :)

**Adlerian: "You seem to have some animosity toward them or you wouldn't have said, "The KKK judges all blacks to be bad.. " such statements are judgmental."

You are confusing judgement and definition again.

FyreStar

FryeStar: It is easy to see that you haven't the slightest clue what generalizing means. In so far as that it true it follows that I would be wasting my time and yours to try to explain what I am talking about. If you wish to have Satanists babysit your children (when and if you have some) you may do as you wish for we all have autonomy, albeit limited, in this life. And when your lack of discernment causes you to lose custody to a state organization you will have no one to blame but yourself, though I doubt you have ever placed any blame there.

For now and the future you may keep your moralizing to yourself. Though I understand what you are saying I also know just how much sense it makes. Pity you don't.

It would be best for both of us to keep our comments to each other to ourselves and save each other the embarrassment that any continued dialogue would ensure though I doubt that your ego will be able to resist commenting to me again. Let us hope I am wrong, though it is unlikely.

I come here to learn and teach. You haven't anything to teach me and you are unable to understand even a modicum of my thought.

Therefore, let us live in peace and keep a silence between us. If you are unable to stop yourself from responding to this, just realize that I am not listening to you and will not respond to anything you write, ever.

Peace,

Adlerian

Alderian--

Can I stick my little nose in here?

It's just that certain things you and Fyre have written in your recent exchange have caught my interest of late.

How about this one? Would you let the members of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) define themselves? Or would you rather a dictionary do it? Being a member of that organization carries with it certain unsavory baggage. I hope that doesn't shock you as well. Being a Satanist also carries with it unsavory baggage that most intelligent people understand. I know very few parents who would let a Satanist babysit for them or housesit for them or even watch their pets while they are on vacation. If that shocks you as well, than I am shocked too. Ratiocination is born of common sense, as when you use the term, judgement. "She has good judgement" is a compliment to a person, perhaps that meant that she as a attactive blonde female she didn't walk down a dimly lit street in an all Negro neighborhood in the middle of the night.

There's a few things here:

* NAMBLA is a political organization, pure and simple. A member of NAMBLA subscribes to its charter/mission/whatever. Therefore, you know that babysitter coming through that door advocates the idea of men and children having sex. However ....

* That leads me to ask upon what you base your idea of "Satanism"? After all, history demonstrates that being a Christian carries its own unsavory moral baggage. In fact, any human endeavor carries unsavory moral baggage. Have you been a practicing Satanist? Are you familiar with the modern works of LaVey, Michael Aquinas, and others? Do you know why Ayn Rand and Mark Twain are considered important writers among modern American Satanists? In fact, I'm curious to hear what it is you know about Satanism, since you've already learned enough to make moral judgements about Satanists. (Oh, and remember--for every wacky murder in the middle of nowhere when some stupid teen says, "The Devil made me do it; we listened to Judas Priest until it told us to kill", well, there's, oh, let's just say many unjust murders committed because someone thought God told them to do it. So your barbs at Satanism apply to any such religion which might be guilty of the same observable acts.)

* How many of those parents that you know who wouldn't let a Satanist babysit their kids know anything about the religion that doesn't come from the family preacher, anti-expressionist literature, or isn't otherwise immersed in some subtle hysteria?

Regarding "all-Negro neighborhoods" ... how, exactly, does that fit? It seems out of place, somehow.

Evidently you don't have children. It would be wiser to say what you would or would not do in a given situation when you have the opportunity to be in the that situation, to say otherwise is to speculate and assume.

Venemous. Next time, take a poll, see who has kids and who doesn't, and then skip the question altogether. Seriously, if you resent your impression that Fyre doesn't have kids, then drop your impression. At least one speculating on their own self isn't speculating and slandering the character of others. Besides, our individual selves are all that we, as individuals have. If you don't find people's opinions valid, then I suppose that's your own issue to deal with. But come on ... I might remind that you asked the question to begin with, as far as I can tell: I refer you to your own quote about NAMBLA and Satanists.

It is easy to see that you haven't the slightest clue what generalizing means. In so far as that it true it follows that I would be wasting my time and yours to try to explain what I am talking about. If you wish to have Satanists babysit your children (when and if you have some) you may do as you wish for we all have autonomy, albeit limited, in this life. And when your lack of discernment causes you to lose custody to a state organization you will have no one to blame but yourself, though I doubt you have ever placed any blame there.

Isn't that a little bitter? Are you suggesting that people should have their children taken away based on the religions of their friends and associates (boldfaced section in quote.) I mean, why don't we just skip it straight to the ducking stool?

I come here to learn and teach. You haven't anything to teach me and you are unable to understand even a modicum of my thought.

Now here I have nothing to offer except questions. What would you like to learn and teach, and within what constraints? We're always happy to make some positive ground, but it's always tough getting that particular jet out of the gate. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are willing to exchange with you ideas with which you are more familiar and comfortable. And I'll even take part, in the long run. For now, though, in case it hadn't become apparent, a couple of things you've written irked me some, but that's cool, 'cuz I'm well aware that there might be something I'm missing in your argument.

But otherwise I'll hush now, and return this thread to its regularly-scheduled debating.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited May 16, 2000).]

Tiassa: I am not interested in debating any subject other than to exchange ideas and see how sound they are when it comes to logic. Whatever a person’s view are, provided they can be defended using logic, are valid. If they cannot be defended using logic they are not valid and quite likely to be worthless when dialoguing.

I will do my best to answer your questions. But I am curious. Why are you asking the questions? Are you really that interested in what I have to say? Are you looking dispassionately for answers? Do you wish to be taught? What is it that makes my answers to your questions important, AT ALL?

If your interest is in arguing or proving me wrong because your ego has certain ideas about people like (in case you have ME in some kind of box) I am NOT interested in discussing such matters.

The original point was that it is better to look for definitions in the dictionary rather than rely on what people say about their group.

Till then,

Adlerian :)

Adlerian -

**Adlerian: "If you wish to have Satanists babysit your children (when and if you have some) you may do as you wish for we all have autonomy, albeit limited, in this life. And when your lack of discernment causes you to lose custody to a state organization you will have no one to blame but yourself"

Well, I've obviously offended you, and I don't know how to overcome your personal bias, so I'll simply say that I disagree.

**Adlerian:" though I doubt you have ever placed any blame there"

Wow, I must have really made you mad.

**Adlerian: "For now and the future you may keep your moralizing to yourself."

Do you still not understand that moralizing is what I've been arguing against this whole time?

**Adlerian: "I doubt that your ego will be able to resist commenting to me again."

Bingo. Is it wrong for me to stand up for what I know is right?

**Adlerian: "I come here to learn and teach. You haven't anything to teach me and you are unable to understand even a modicum of my thought."

Ya know, despite how you dress it up, 'Yer an idiot' still lacks any argumentative clout.

**Adlerian: "Therefore, let us live in peace and keep a silence between us."

Side note to tiassa: This sound familiar? :) Was I being this blind when I said that to you?

**Adlerian: "If you are unable to stop yourself from responding to this, just realize that I am not listening to you and will not respond to anything you write, ever."

Free country.

Have a nice 'ever',
FyreStar

Alderian--

Whatever a person’s view are, provided they can be defended using logic, are valid. If they cannot be defended using logic they are not valid and quite likely to be worthless when dialoguing.

I agree entirely. It's just that a couple of things sorta flashed at me.

If I might simplify: I agree there's a sound logic to not letting a NAMBLA member babysit one's children. I do not agree that a proper logic exists regarding the impact of your suggestions regarding Satanism.

But, truly, I'm well aware it could be something I'm simply missing.

thanx,
Tiassa :)

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)