Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. It’s not meaningless. It shows how meaningless the omni- attributes are. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped] What "drivel"? The only drivel is the rationalisation instead of dropping the omni- attributes. People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence". It’s not a psudo-paradox. Merely an illustration of the problems introduced by the omni-whatever attributes believers insist on.
Actually, it illustrates a problem that seems to have escaped notice over 2000 years, where do the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe come from. The Greeks sort of punted on that long ago. They concieved of the raw material of the Universe as being some sort of chaotic, unformed material from which by laws of its own it emanated the beings we call gods, The Titan were the original gods who begat the Olympians who displaced them. Where this chaos came from was something they gave up explaining, but they did derive the idea that the Universe thus had no beginning and no end. Later philosophers explained that chaos by positing a god, a prime mover, who many concieved of having started the Universe and then doing nothing further. When the xian theologians adopted the Greek philosopher’s prime mover god, which was said to be the source of this chaos, a later development beyond the classic emanation claims, they did not change that idea materially, but tried grafting that god to the biblical god. But never did explain where this god came from any more than the Greeks. The Greeks tried to make minimum claims for this god to avoid these issues and xianity followed. The problem has now shifted from theology or philsophy to cosmology, physics, we have discarded gods and chaos and prime movers, and emanations but the problem remains, why does the Universe exist and where do the rules that allow it exist come from? Christianity instead got involved with long christological puzzles such as battles over the nature of god, Jesus and the trinity, and similar puzzles. — Kerry – two medals a silver and bronze star. Bush? Well they don’t give medals for going AWOL, missing your medical and getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool. Kerry – a hero, Bush – a zero Cheerful Charlie
Response:
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc.
Why is it meaningless. Because what I asked was a deeper question. Does god make the rules. Does the fact a triangle has certain properties a fact derived by god’s choosing those rules? Or is there some reason a triangle must have these properties that god cannot in principle change? If so, where do those rules come from. You have decided to ignore the real issue here, and you have failed to appreciate the issue. Your answerr has nothing to do with the real issue I pointed out here. Where do the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe come from? If outside of god these things may well be impossible, but arepossible if god does make the rule and can change them. That’s the whole point you have utterly missed. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped]
You didn’t get it, did you? OK, one more time, where do the rules and the laws and the logic of the Universe come from? God or beyond and outside god. I have yet to see anybody honestly and competently deal with my challenge. You have not. You don’t even seem to have read it and noted the real challenge. Where do the laws of the Universe, the laws and logic of the Universe come from? God or outside god and beyond his control? You have not adequately dealt with my disproof. People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence".
I posed to you a problem, the source of the rule, the laws and logic of the Universe. You do not seem capable of understanding that simple problem and the fact that either answer has consequences. Or maybe you did and have decided to avoid those consequences by avoiding an honest answer on the important issue I raise. Where do the laws, the rule, the logic of the Universe come from, god, or outside god? Your attempt here is inadequate and wrong. I have yet to see a single theist even attempt to deal with this issue honestly. — Kerry – two medals a silver and bronze star. Bush? Well they don’t give medals for going AWOL, missing your medical and getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool. Kerry – a hero, Bush – a zero Cheerful Charlie
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So then, that men in history have written about X is not suficeint to be believe X is true. I’m curiuos. What evidence do you require of the theist? First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here.
Reasonable adults don’t post a one line reply to a 200+ line post. I note you still brushed off dealing with my proof. Again. — Kerry – two medals a silver and bronze star. Bush? Well they don’t give medals for going AWOL, missing your medical and getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool. Kerry – a hero, Bush – a zero Cheerful Charlie
Response:
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse?
Or paradoxes are the result of competing definitions. Live and corpse are by defintion different. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped] People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence". Regards, Len.
Response:
| The 32 points describes below are a means to disprove intelligence, | consciousness and will. actually bob, they are 32 fairly well thought out points that actually *employ* intelligence in both assertion and validation. | I cannot create a square circle, therefore, I cannot be intelligent, | conscious or have will. that’s rhetorical…like "note to self: i am neither intelligent, conscious, nor have will". creation denotes a mark of intelligence but the inability to create does not logically nullify one’s capacity in the least! besides, if you can read for comprehension, the point of the argument was that if the thing called a square, or triangle, or octagon is immutable (change-able but not without becoming something wholy different that what it was) then god is powerless to create a true square having sides of differerent lengths, a triangle with more than three sides, or an octagon having something other than eight. the inference you should have gotten is that it is more reasonable to assume that natural law both exists and is at least equal to the the big g’s power…point being that he cannot be omnipotent. and if i predict your rebuttal, the act of abdication of power infact renders the all-powerful less than all-powerful…less than omnipotent even if that be temporary. either way, that just begs the question of clarification: "is god omnipotent *all* the time?"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In article First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here. When you want to use usenet showing courtesy to others by not forcing them to re-download a 200 or 400 line post, we may think that you have something worthwhile to say. Mr Barwell rebuked you, harshly but justifiably, but then gave a lengthy response, which you re-posted *again* without any response of your own. Why do I get the impression that you are either a clueless newbie or a worthless troll? I make it a policy not to concede to the demands of people when they are being abusive.
You found an excuse not to deal with my disproof. Again. — Kerry – two medals a silver and bronze star. Bush? Well they don’t give medals for going AWOL, missing your medical and getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool. Kerry – a hero, Bush – a zero Cheerful Charlie
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? Or paradoxes are the result of competing definitions. Live and corpse are by defintion different. A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped] People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence".
A casual caring person will risk his or her life to save a child from certain death. A person who stood by in no danger and knowing what would happen and did nothing would be condemned. The world spends billions of dollars every year to cure diseases. Even today over 1,000,000 children a year die a horrible death just from malaria. Claiming a God loves us a paradox.
Response:
|Live and corpse are by defintion different. tell that to the corspe!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? Or paradoxes are the result of competing definitions. Live and corpse are by defintion different. A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped] People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence". A casual caring person will risk his or her life to save a child from certain death. A person who stood by in no danger and knowing what would happen and did nothing would be condemned.
So then, the desire to save children (x) is in service to avoid the consequence of condemnation (y) Who will condemn you? I wouldn’t. The world spends billions of dollars every year to cure diseases. Even today over 1,000,000 children a year die a horrible death just from malaria. Claiming a God loves us a paradox.
Applying human perceptions to a god concept seems illogical.
Response:
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle?
What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped]
People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence". Regards, Len.
Response:
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc.
It’s not meaningless. It shows how meaningless the omni- attributes are. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped]
What "drivel"? The only drivel is the rationalisation instead of dropping the omni- attributes. People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence".
It’s not a psudo-paradox. Merely an illustration of the problems introduced by the omni-whatever attributes believers insist on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Regards, Len.
Response:
First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here.
When you want to use usenet showing courtesy to others by not forcing them to re-download a 200 or 400 line post, we may think that you have something worthwhile to say. Mr Barwell rebuked you, harshly but justifiably, but then gave a lengthy response, which you re-posted *again* without any response of your own. Why do I get the impression that you are either a clueless newbie or a worthless troll?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." "The question is," said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master — that is all." (Lewis Carroll "Alice Through the Looking Glass") Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism.
It’s all the fault of that nasty internet. I will leave it to someone with time on his hands to attempt refuration of your arguments point-by-point. I will add, however that atheism strong or weak, is neither one a new idea. — Chinese accordions suck.
Response:
atheism lite snip Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists.
You say "denial" as if someone would be denying a fact. Do you DENY that Unicorns and Satyrs exist? (hint: the bible speaks of both). You see, prior to 25 years ago, people would be ostracized from their community and risk being fired or having their career destroyed by stating they were an atheist. 200+ years ago, atheists would have risked their lives claiming their beliefs. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism.
Discussion and understanding are both Good things. Thank God for the Internet. (or Al Gore, depending on your take) Traditional/historical atheism is now referred to as "strong" atheism while an increasingly popular form of atheism rearing its head on the Net and elsewhere is known as "weak" atheism – the notion that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. And it truly is weak!
I lack the belief in a God or gods. I lack the belief in YOUR god. The word ‘deny’ can be taken many ways… If asked, I would deny the existence of all gods since I have chalked them up to mythologies created to explain man’s view of the universe. Do you DENY the existence of invisible pink unicorns? How can you deny their existence? Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms but I suspect that the majority of atheists one meets on Internet forums are actually too young to realize that they have deserted the classical position of atheism of their "spiritual [sic] forefathers. "Strong" atheism is the only respectable form of atheism, the weak version is nothing but a cop out; a flagrant attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof that always falls to the person who makes any assertion or argument.
Is your denial of invisible pink unicorns a cop-out? Is your lack of belief in them somehow WEAK and an attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof? This isn’t rhetorical… please do answer. "If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor.
I believe there is no proof of any gods. My evidence of my claim is that no one has any proof of any gods. What "evidence" could their possibly be for the non-existence of something? Please show us your EVIDENCE that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. (again… not rhetorical, please post your evidence here) The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." [Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith]
So you say you don’t believe there are invisible pink unicorns. Good. So by your claim (at least your cut-and-paste claim) you must show us all PROOF that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. Lacking such proof, you must, by ‘logical’ conclusion, begin BELIEVING in invisible pink unicorns! So, presto, why not shift the burden of proof!? And this is exactly what a new generation of atheists are doing; they do not have a solid case to build for their position so they hide behind the cop out of pretending that they merely are "without" or "lacking" belief in God. Everyone knows the dictum "you cannot prove a negative", so to claim absolutely that gods do not exist is a pretty tall order.
Is it really so TALL? What about your claim that no god other than your god exists? Your views on all the other gods is that you don’t Believe in them. Your "proof" that they don’t exist is that your religious texts says that you should put no gods before your god… it doesn’t say other gods don’t exist though!!! Is it a tall order when you (presumably) claim that invisible pink unicorns don’t exist? (answer please) If belief is defined, as it is, as a positive attribute of trust, commitment and assent, then it is saying absolutely nothing of significance to proclaim that one simply "lacks" it. One does not produce dozens of web pages and appear on hundreds of forums merely to defend the proposition that you don’t have a proposition to defend.
The Proposition is this: Atheists have seen no proof of your god or any god (hence don’t believe in gods). The primary proposition is THERE IS NO PROOF. The only argument you can bring forth to that proposition is proof. Defense of the atheistic view is simple. Show us why your god is real and all the others are false. It’s exactly the same as you not being able to show us proof that the invisible pink unicorns do not exist. Contemporary atheists claim that Christians are atheists about the gods of other religions because they deny their validity and refuse to worship them. That is perfectly true, but irrelevant, for is not the issue that really concerns modern atheists – "weak" ones who affirm that they are simply without belief in the supernatural, or "strong" ones who actively deny the existence of the supernatural.
This isn’t irrelevant in the least. It’s trying to explain to Christians how atheists view the christian god. The best way to do that is to find common ground… Atheists and Christians see eye-to-eye on 99% of the gods. The classical view does not automatically dismiss the realm of the spirit or of the supernatural while the contemporary one does just that. The ridiculous claim that because atheists reject all gods whereas Christians only reject 99%, therefore Christians are hypocrites, is nothing more than a polemical ploy – meaningless in a discussion about the validity and reality of the supernatural or the evidences for or against a proposition. It results in the frequent contradiction of atheists arguing vociferously in favour of other non-Christian gods in order to attack the Christian God!
Who in the hell are you cutting-and-pasting here? Why would you think that explaining the world view of Atheists is equivalent to attacking the Christian god? And I suspect quite strongly that most atheists come to Christian sites to prey because they (let’s be brutally honest) hate Christianity. It is a simple as that. They have no great worldview vision that will enrich the lives of humanity; they just hate the religion that their parents forced them to follow in their childhood and youth. And they are angry!
First off, I’m responding to this from ALT.ATHEISM. In general, most atheists don’t HATE Christians, and, personally, I’ve never met one in real life that does. Atheists seem to always be battling against Christians because Christians (at least the vociferous ones) would love to see secular society be ruled by religious laws. . . that is, THEIR interpretations of THEIR religious laws. This is a direct threat to all people (Christian, other-faithed, and atheist) who don’t agree with the current fundamentalist world view. Isn’t it the truth of the matter that weak atheists ("atheism lite") are cowardly, unwilling to accept real full strength atheism, but incapable of stating their true position, which is that they really don’t know – in other words agnosticism?
Are you a coward and unwilling to accept the fact that invisible pink unicorns exist? Of course you’re not, and atheists, weak or strong, are not cowardly either. James, Seattle
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here. When you want to use usenet showing courtesy to others by not forcing them to re-download a 200 or 400 line post, we may think that you have something worthwhile to say. Mr Barwell rebuked you, harshly but justifiably, but then gave a lengthy response, which you re-posted *again* without any response of your own. Why do I get the impression that you are either a clueless newbie or a worthless troll?
I make it a policy not to concede to the demands of people when they are being abusive.
Response:
So then, that men in history have written about X is not suficeint to be believe X is true. I’m curiuos. What evidence do you require of the theist? First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it.
When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Second, when an Atheist such as myself, takes the god that everybody jabbers about in the broad sense and shows it cannot exist as dogmatically defined, don’t as you did in another thread, just brush it off dishonestly. You and others have so far failed utterly and dishonestly to deal with my disproof in any honest and intellectually rational manner. Most assuredly because you cannot. It is up to the theist to define what is to be disproven or proven. You are the clowns that keep babbling about "god". I have taken the broadest definitions used throughout history and show that this sort of god is not acceptable. What a theist has to do first of all, is be honest about this. You have a god that is well defined in the broadest senses, dogmatically. Since these claimed definitions cause this a priori god to self destruct, you cannot present any evidence at all. You could however, abandon th etheological god, this omni-everything, greater than anything that can be concieved god. You could go with the old fashioned bible god. But there is a problem here too. Archaeology has debunked the OT, there was no Egyptian capivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody, genocidal invasion of Canaan by Moses or Joshua. Archaeology has debunked all of that. The Bible god is a being who is said to have at certain times, done certain things, at certain places, involving certain people. These places, times and people and happenings are now shown to not have happened. God is like them, a character in a novel paraded as history, which it is not. So the bible god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is likewise as the theological omni-everything god, non-existant. We can likewise apply the same debunking to the Hindu religion likewise. So you can’t wave that ugly bible at us as proof either, not anymore. What do we require of the thesit? First of all in YOUR case, honesty, which in case of disproving god, you have not shown. Intellectual honesty and abandoning irrationality, sophistry, word games and other failed and dishonest and sleazy attempts to slide around this problem. Next, define what it is you want to prove, honestly. No slippery sliding aorund, no changing definitions on the fly, no word games, no equivacations. Next, hard evidence for any claimed attributes for god or any other claimed facts. If you say god is omnipotent, whats the hard evidenc for that claim? One empty assertion is the equal of any other. Which is no worth at all. If a theist says God is omnipotent and tells me he has no need to offer evidence, I say, god does not exist, I have no more need to offer evidence than you do. My claim is just as good as yours. If I offer a good argument and you brush it off with specious and dishonest excuses, you lose right there. You have no chance if you cannot be honest, and you cannot change my mind without dealing honestly with my counter arguments, which you have not. Neither does your buddy Virgil who refuses to even acknowledge my argument, while lying that no Atheist can disprove god. You cannot prove anything to any atheist as long as you are dishonest and irrational. Mind you, my little argument here is just PART of it al, there is more, but when you guys can’t even bring yourself to argue honestly this far, we don’t even get to the debunking your bible god as I did above. So to begin with, you can start by being honest, and rational. Which so far over the two years I have been arguing, not one theist has been either rational or honest. Which is heartening. I must be on the right track if all I can get out of the theist clown pack here in AA is lame attempts to brush this off and pretend it doesn’t exist. Virgil doesn’t even have the guts to even mention my repeated posts, slapping his face with this disproof. God disproved. By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology, the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? 2. That really asks the question, does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason? 3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try answering yes. 4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 5. But in this world we see that man often does moral evil. 6. If god could create such a word since he creates the Universe’s rules, and does not do so,god is effectively the creator of all evil, past, present and future. Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil, that is omnimalevolent, rather than as claimed, omnibenevolent. 8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent rather than omnimalevolent, this is obviously not acceptable. 9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or the logic of the Universe. 10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god himself may not do evil, but that this does not mean god is not omnipotent, because it is god’s nature to be good. Thus they do not account this inability to do evil as limiting god’s free will either. Thus the idea of man being unable to do evil should likewise not be allowed as an argument, if they refuse to apply the same standards and reasoning to god, that would be special pleading. 11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing evil, evil is necessary to allow for free will, but that dodge is not acceptable in a world where man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing moral evil is impossible. It can’t be used here. 12. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim, then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim is obviously not true. 13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims such as Anselm’s ontological proof and these are all thus falsified. 14. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic, obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma. 15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either preceed him or parallel god’s existance, he cannot have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created all is false also. 16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the Universe in the manner that limits him, but god, being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent would have known that by creating such a Universe, he was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge fails. 17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, yet evil exists. he either camnnot or will not end evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or omnipotent. 18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous traditions has failed to see this god as shown above, cannot exist as claimed. 19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed methodology and its basic method, making overarching assertions without evidence is a failed methodology. 20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue using a failed methodology, making empty assertions, special pleading, double standards and failing to adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting
… read more »
Response:
So then, that men in history have written about X is not suficeint to be believe X is true. I’m curiuos. What evidence do you require of the theist?
First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. Second, when an Atheist such as myself, takes the god that everybody jabbers about in the broad sense and shows it cannot exist as dogmatically defined, don’t as you did in another thread, just brush it off dishonestly. You and others have so far failed utterly and dishonestly to deal with my disproof in any honest and intellectually rational manner. Most assuredly because you cannot. It is up to the theist to define what is to be disproven or proven. You are the clowns that keep babbling about "god". I have taken the broadest definitions used throughout history and show that this sort of god is not acceptable. What a theist has to do first of all, is be honest about this. You have a god that is well defined in the broadest senses, dogmatically. Since these claimed definitions cause this a priori god to self destruct, you cannot present any evidence at all. You could however, abandon th etheological god, this omni-everything, greater than anything that can be concieved god. You could go with the old fashioned bible god. But there is a problem here too. Archaeology has debunked the OT, there was no Egyptian capivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody, genocidal invasion of Canaan by Moses or Joshua. Archaeology has debunked all of that. The Bible god is a being who is said to have at certain times, done certain things, at certain places, involving certain people. These places, times and people and happenings are now shown to not have happened. God is like them, a character in a novel paraded as history, which it is not. So the bible god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is likewise as the theological omni-everything god, non-existant. We can likewise apply the same debunking to the Hindu religion likewise. So you can’t wave that ugly bible at us as proof either, not anymore. What do we require of the thesit? First of all in YOUR case, honesty, which in case of disproving god, you have not shown. Intellectual honesty and abandoning irrationality, sophistry, word games and other failed and dishonest and sleazy attempts to slide around this problem. Next, define what it is you want to prove, honestly. No slippery sliding aorund, no changing definitions on the fly, no word games, no equivacations. Next, hard evidence for any claimed attributes for god or any other claimed facts. If you say god is omnipotent, whats the hard evidenc for that claim? One empty assertion is the equal of any other. Which is no worth at all. If a theist says God is omnipotent and tells me he has no need to offer evidence, I say, god does not exist, I have no more need to offer evidence than you do. My claim is just as good as yours. If I offer a good argument and you brush it off with specious and dishonest excuses, you lose right there. You have no chance if you cannot be honest, and you cannot change my mind without dealing honestly with my counter arguments, which you have not. Neither does your buddy Virgil who refuses to even acknowledge my argument, while lying that no Atheist can disprove god. You cannot prove anything to any atheist as long as you are dishonest and irrational. Mind you, my little argument here is just PART of it al, there is more, but when you guys can’t even bring yourself to argue honestly this far, we don’t even get to the debunking your bible god as I did above. So to begin with, you can start by being honest, and rational. Which so far over the two years I have been arguing, not one theist has been either rational or honest. Which is heartening. I must be on the right track if all I can get out of the theist clown pack here in AA is lame attempts to brush this off and pretend it doesn’t exist. Virgil doesn’t even have the guts to even mention my repeated posts, slapping his face with this disproof. God disproved. By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology, the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? 2. That really asks the question, does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason? 3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try answering yes. 4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 5. But in this world we see that man often does moral evil. 6. If god could create such a word since he creates the Universe’s rules, and does not do so,god is effectively the creator of all evil, past, present and future. Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil, that is omnimalevolent, rather than as claimed, omnibenevolent. 8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent rather than omnimalevolent, this is obviously not acceptable. 9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or the logic of the Universe. 10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god himself may not do evil, but that this does not mean god is not omnipotent, because it is god’s nature to be good. Thus they do not account this inability to do evil as limiting god’s free will either. Thus the idea of man being unable to do evil should likewise not be allowed as an argument, if they refuse to apply the same standards and reasoning to god, that would be special pleading. 11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing evil, evil is necessary to allow for free will, but that dodge is not acceptable in a world where man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing moral evil is impossible. It can’t be used here. 12. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim, then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim is obviously not true. 13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims such as Anselm’s ontological proof and these are all thus falsified. 14. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic, obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma. 15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either preceed him or parallel god’s existance, he cannot have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created all is false also. 16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the Universe in the manner that limits him, but god, being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent would have known that by creating such a Universe, he was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge fails. 17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, yet evil exists. he either camnnot or will not end evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or omnipotent. 18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous traditions has failed to see this god as shown above, cannot exist as claimed. 19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed methodology and its basic method, making overarching assertions without evidence is a failed methodology. 20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue using a failed methodology, making empty assertions, special pleading, double standards and failing to adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting assertions not proven one way or another and in the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all together with rhetorical questions "How can limited man hope to understand an infinte god?". These sorts of statments are simply indications that the person in question is not going to be rational or reasonable or change his or her mind faced with facts. 21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all expectations of respect for one’s claims, that person has abandoned reason and intellectual honesty for obscurantism and superstition. 22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of the Universe? And what
… read more »
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." God disproved. By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology, the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
The 32 points describes below are a means to disprove intelligence, consciousness and will. I cannot create a square circle, therefore, I cannot be intelligent, conscious or have will. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? 2. That really asks the question, does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason? 3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try answering yes. 4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 5. But in this world we see that man often does moral evil. 6. If god could create such a word since he creates the Universe’s rules, and does not do so,god is effectively the creator of all evil, past, present and future. Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil, that is omnimalevolent, rather than as claimed, omnibenevolent. 8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent rather than omnimalevolent, this is obviously not acceptable. 9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or the logic of the Universe. 10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god himself may not do evil, but that this does not mean god is not omnipotent, because it is god’s nature to be good. Thus they do not account this inability to do evil as limiting god’s free will either. Thus the idea of man being unable to do evil should likewise not be allowed as an argument, if they refuse to apply the same standards and reasoning to god, that would be special pleading. 11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing evil, evil is necessary to allow for free will, but that dodge is not acceptable in a world where man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing moral evil is impossible. It can’t be used here. 12. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim, then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim is obviously not true. 13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims such as Anselm’s ontological proof and these are all thus falsified. 14. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic, obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma. 15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either preceed him or parallel god’s existance, he cannot have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created all is false also. 16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the Universe in the manner that limits him, but god, being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent would have known that by creating such a Universe, he was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge fails. 17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, yet evil exists. he either camnnot or will not end evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or omnipotent. 18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous traditions has failed to see this god as shown above, cannot exist as claimed. 19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed methodology and its basic method, making overarching assertions without evidence is a failed methodology. 20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue using a failed methodology, making empty assertions, special pleading, double standards and failing to adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting assertions not proven one way or another and in the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all together with rhetorical questions "How can limited man hope to understand an infinte god?". These sorts of statments are simply indications that the person in question is not going to be rational or reasonable or change his or her mind faced with facts. 21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all expectations of respect for one’s claims, that person has abandoned reason and intellectual honesty for obscurantism and superstition. 22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of the Universe? And what can we say about them? 23. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic understandings of the laws ofthe Universe. Things are made up of matter and energy, operating in a framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known by science, physics, chemisty, astronomy and other sciences. 24. There is no room in these laws and rules of the Universe for dissembodied gods or entities that have will and who act. Thinking beings are made of matter and energy and subject to rules of chemistry and physics. 25. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence that a god or other supernatural entity can exist. Much less the Grand God of theological tradition. 26. The failed theological methodology of making unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims is not an acceptable method for doing so, since as demonstrated above, that is a failure as a methodology. 27. At early times, man had no notion of a supernatural versus a natural worl, but as the idea of a natural world has evolved, the idea of a supernatual world has faded away. All is seen to be a natural world of matter, energy, physics, no sign of supernatural worlds or entities can be found. 28. All claims thus based on the idea a supernatural world or entities might exist are unproven, and it is the burden of anyone making such a claim to prove such a thing does in fact exist, before attempting to use claims of the existance of a supernatural realm as a theoretical bassis for existance of god. And by prove, I mean to produce good, hard evidencefor such a supernatural world, not assertions that may or may not be true. This is the failed theological methodology and is no longer acceptable. 24. There is a difference between making theoretical claims a god may exist, and actually showing hard evidence a god exists. Claiming god exists based on deeper unproven assertions, existance of a supernatural world, is not acceptable as evidence. One may not stack up mere assertions and claim it is hard evidence. Arranging assertions in a manner that proof or disproof is impossible because it involves a general disproof of a negative is not acceptable as a methodology for providing hard evidence of a god. 25. Since to save god’s omni-benevolence, one must admit that god did not create the rules and laws and logic of the Universe, we know that these things are beyond and outside god. But theology cannot tell us we what these things are,and where they come from. Since these things must limit god, failure to be able to tell us anything about these laws and rules in the setting of theological claims about god, this means until theology handles this honestly and adequately, theology cannot tell us anything about god, even theoretically. 26. Theology must do this if it is to make further claims about god in an attempt to save the concept of god by making further assertions or claims. One cannot describe god apart from a world in which god must operate and exist with existing features preceeding and
… read more »
Response:
<snip 229 lines of mind-numbingly boring pedantic drivel I’m sorry…. you had a point?
Response:
atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less."
God disproved. By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology, the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or a 4 sided triangle? 2. That really asks the question, does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason? 3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try answering yes. 4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 5. But in this world we see that man often does moral evil. 6. If god could create such a word since he creates the Universe’s rules, and does not do so,god is effectively the creator of all evil, past, present and future. Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil, that is omnimalevolent, rather than as claimed, omnibenevolent. 8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent rather than omnimalevolent, this is obviously not acceptable. 9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or the logic of the Universe. 10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god himself may not do evil, but that this does not mean god is not omnipotent, because it is god’s nature to be good. Thus they do not account this inability to do evil as limiting god’s free will either. Thus the idea of man being unable to do evil should likewise not be allowed as an argument, if they refuse to apply the same standards and reasoning to god, that would be special pleading. 11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing evil, evil is necessary to allow for free will, but that dodge is not acceptable in a world where man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing moral evil is impossible. It can’t be used here. 12. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim, then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim is obviously not true. 13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims such as Anselm’s ontological proof and these are all thus falsified. 14. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic, obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma. 15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either preceed him or parallel god’s existance, he cannot have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created all is false also. 16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the Universe in the manner that limits him, but god, being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent would have known that by creating such a Universe, he was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge fails. 17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, yet evil exists. he either camnnot or will not end evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or omnipotent. 18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous traditions has failed to see this god as shown above, cannot exist as claimed. 19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed methodology and its basic method, making overarching assertions without evidence is a failed methodology. 20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue using a failed methodology, making empty assertions, special pleading, double standards and failing to adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting assertions not proven one way or another and in the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all together with rhetorical questions "How can limited man hope to understand an infinte god?". These sorts of statments are simply indications that the person in question is not going to be rational or reasonable or change his or her mind faced with facts. 21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all expectations of respect for one’s claims, that person has abandoned reason and intellectual honesty for obscurantism and superstition. 22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of the Universe? And what can we say about them? 23. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic understandings of the laws ofthe Universe. Things are made up of matter and energy, operating in a framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known by science, physics, chemisty, astronomy and other sciences. 24. There is no room in these laws and rules of the Universe for dissembodied gods or entities that have will and who act. Thinking beings are made of matter and energy and subject to rules of chemistry and physics. 25. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence that a god or other supernatural entity can exist. Much less the Grand God of theological tradition. 26. The failed theological methodology of making unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims is not an acceptable method for doing so, since as demonstrated above, that is a failure as a methodology. 27. At early times, man had no notion of a supernatural versus a natural worl, but as the idea of a natural world has evolved, the idea of a supernatual world has faded away. All is seen to be a natural world of matter, energy, physics, no sign of supernatural worlds or entities can be found. 28. All claims thus based on the idea a supernatural world or entities might exist are unproven, and it is the burden of anyone making such a claim to prove such a thing does in fact exist, before attempting to use claims of the existance of a supernatural realm as a theoretical bassis for existance of god. And by prove, I mean to produce good, hard evidencefor such a supernatural world, not assertions that may or may not be true. This is the failed theological methodology and is no longer acceptable. 24. There is a difference between making theoretical claims a god may exist, and actually showing hard evidence a god exists. Claiming god exists based on deeper unproven assertions, existance of a supernatural world, is not acceptable as evidence. One may not stack up mere assertions and claim it is hard evidence. Arranging assertions in a manner that proof or disproof is impossible because it involves a general disproof of a negative is not acceptable as a methodology for providing hard evidence of a god. 25. Since to save god’s omni-benevolence, one must admit that god did not create the rules and laws and logic of the Universe, we know that these things are beyond and outside god. But theology cannot tell us we what these things are,and where they come from. Since these things must limit god, failure to be able to tell us anything about these laws and rules in the setting of theological claims about god, this means until theology handles this honestly and adequately, theology cannot tell us anything about god, even theoretically. 26. Theology must do this if it is to make further claims about god in an attempt to save the concept of god by making further assertions or claims. One cannot describe god apart from a world in which god must operate and exist with existing features preceeding and outside and limiting or constraining any possible god. 27. Possible alternative gods. A believer might criticize this as it does not disprove all types of gods, but, as this does disprovethe dogmatic god of major religous systems, that claim does not saves this god. And indeed it is possible to disprove other god concepts. 28. Example, older Roman and Greek religions and numerous other older polytheistic ancient religions were basically built on the idea of nature gods, that these gods are responsible for features of the world, for rainfall, fertility of wives, cattle and fields, for important activities like growing wheat. But today, science explains these things
… read more »
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This just lengthy obfuscation. A silly attempt to discredit atheism by claiming they have no proof god does not exist. This is turning logic upside down. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove something does not exist. You can only say you do not believe it exists because there is no evidence of it’s existence. The atheist belief is that their is no proof or objective evidence that gods exist. The burden is on the theists to submit objective evidence and proof that gods do exist. Ancient documents, like the Bible, are nothing but documents prepared by errant men and are not PROOF of anything other than the existence of these documents. They are not proof or objective evidence of any gods. — Bill atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." "The question is," said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master — that is all." (Lewis Carroll "Alice Through the Looking Glass") Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism. Traditional/historical atheism is now referred to as "strong" atheism while an increasingly popular form of atheism rearing its head on the Net and elsewhere is known as "weak" atheism – the notion that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. And it truly is weak! Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms but I suspect that the majority of atheists one meets on Internet forums are actually too young to realize that they have deserted the classical position of atheism of their "spiritual [sic] forefathers. "Strong" atheism is the only respectable form of atheism, the weak version is nothing but a cop out; a flagrant attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof that always falls to the person who makes any assertion or argument. "If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." [Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith] No less a luminary than Interent Infidel Jeffrey Jay Lowder admits "anyone who claims, ‘God does not exist,’ must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."" So, presto, why not shift the burden of proof!? And this is exactly what a new generation of atheists are doing; they do not have a solid case to build for their position so they hide behind the cop out of pretending that they merely are "without" or "lacking" belief in God. Everyone knows the dictum "you cannot prove a negative", so to claim absolutely that gods do not exist is a pretty tall order. Isn’t that why fewer atheists these days are willing to make such a claim? A claim by the way that atheists of the 20th century made without flinching. Consider Jean Paul Sartre near the end of his life: "I have caught the Holy Ghost in the cellars and flung him out of them. Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe I have gone through it to the end." If belief is defined, as it is, as a positive attribute of trust, commitment and assent, then it is saying absolutely nothing of significance to proclaim that one simply "lacks" it. One does not produce dozens of web pages and appear on hundreds of forums merely to defend the proposition that you don’t have a proposition to defend. It is lunacy on the part of "born again weak atheists" to even bother to come to Christian boards and chatgroups – unless one is a "Christ-hater", an anti-Christian, or an anti-theist (i.e. a God denier) – because one cannot logically and sanely get worked up over a God whom one claims is meaningless and non-existent. If one has no positive proposition to put forward, one is nothing more than a naysayer or a sick individual who gets his jollies by mocking the positive beliefs of others – positive beliefs being something he apparently lacks. Are you guys nuts? Get a life. As is asserted in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism: "If the atheist is simply without God, then he is not asserting anything. On the other hand, the theist is asserting the existence of something (God), so the burden of proof is on him…Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God." This is thoroughly disingenuous and self-serving. I am staggered (or perhaps I am not) at the frequency and boldness with which this asinine assertion is put forward by self-proclaimed freethinkers and rational thinkers who should no better, but continue on their merry way butchering the laws of logic and the rules of evidence. Atheist philosopher Ernest Nagel had this to say about the meaning of the word "atheism" in a book highly praised on the Secular Web site by the aforementioned Jeff Lowder: "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist-for he his not denying any theistic claims. As I see it, atheistic philosophers fall into two major groups; (1) Those which hold that theistic doctrine is meaningful, but reject it either on the grounds that (a) the positive evidence for it is insufficient, or (b) the negative evidence is quite overwhelming; and (2) those that hold that the theistic thesis is not even meaningful, and reject it (a) as just nonsense, or (b) as literally meaningless , but interpreting it as a symbolic rendering of human ideals. It will not be possible in the limited space at my disposal to discuss the second category of atheist critiques; and in any event, most of the traditional atheistic critiques of theism belong to the first group". "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism" [Ernest Nagel in "Critiques of God" Prometheus Books, 1976. ] So in 1976 a well-known atheist clearly outlined the dominant understanding among atheists of atheism at that time. One can see that in the 25 years since the first appearance of "Critiques of God", many atheists have deserted the traditional atheist position and have embraced what was formerly a minority position. Why? Short-term memory loss or something more sinister? Donn Day has done some detailed research into the etymology and history of the term atheism and he reports that as far as he can ascertain the revised usage of the word "atheism" has been around, only, since 1979. The first usage of the new "redefinition" seems to have appeared in, "Atheism: The Case Against God", by George H. Smith, one of the Secular Web’s top ten atheist books. This is how Smith defined atheism: "Atheism therefore, is the absence of theistic belief…in its main form, it is not belief; it is the absence of belief." A year later Prometheus Books released, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein. This book had the following definition: "…an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important…To be without a belief in God merely means that the term ‘God’ has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely, this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is a lack of belief." In 1984 philosopher Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism concurred, but he, at least, to his credit, explicitly acknowledges this as a "new" definition: "…we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist." Now I think we all understand that words and their meanings evolve and change over time in any language, but the current "hopeful monster" definition of atheism is definitely a case of punctuated equilibrium – it has happened so incredibly fast!
… read more »
Response:
On 05 Oct 2004, Voice of Truth dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted: No less a luminary than Interent Infidel Jeffrey Jay Lowder admits "anyone who claims, ‘God does not exist,’ must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists.""
Wrong. — Vic Sagerquist aa#2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department Vote for John Kerry God belongs in church, not the White House.
Response:
Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms
Then why the fuck are you bothering to post 229 lines of blathering to the contrary about it?
Response:
This just lengthy obfuscation. A silly attempt to discredit atheism by claiming they have no proof god does not exist. This is turning logic upside down. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove something does not exist. You can only say you do not believe it exists because there is no evidence of it’s existence. The atheist belief is that their is no proof or objective evidence that gods exist. The burden is on the theists to submit objective evidence and proof that gods do exist. Ancient documents, like the Bible, are nothing but documents prepared by errant men and are not PROOF of anything other than the existence of these documents. They are not proof or objective evidence of any gods. — Bill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." "The question is," said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master — that is all." (Lewis Carroll "Alice Through the Looking Glass") Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism. Traditional/historical atheism is now referred to as "strong" atheism while an increasingly popular form of atheism rearing its head on the Net and elsewhere is known as "weak" atheism – the notion that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. And it truly is weak! Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms but I suspect that the majority of atheists one meets on Internet forums are actually too young to realize that they have deserted the classical position of atheism of their "spiritual [sic] forefathers. "Strong" atheism is the only respectable form of atheism, the weak version is nothing but a cop out; a flagrant attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof that always falls to the person who makes any assertion or argument. "If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." [Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith] No less a luminary than Interent Infidel Jeffrey Jay Lowder admits "anyone who claims, ‘God does not exist,’ must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."" So, presto, why not shift the burden of proof!? And this is exactly what a new generation of atheists are doing; they do not have a solid case to build for their position so they hide behind the cop out of pretending that they merely are "without" or "lacking" belief in God. Everyone knows the dictum "you cannot prove a negative", so to claim absolutely that gods do not exist is a pretty tall order. Isn’t that why fewer atheists these days are willing to make such a claim? A claim by the way that atheists of the 20th century made without flinching. Consider Jean Paul Sartre near the end of his life: "I have caught the Holy Ghost in the cellars and flung him out of them. Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe I have gone through it to the end." If belief is defined, as it is, as a positive attribute of trust, commitment and assent, then it is saying absolutely nothing of significance to proclaim that one simply "lacks" it. One does not produce dozens of web pages and appear on hundreds of forums merely to defend the proposition that you don’t have a proposition to defend. It is lunacy on the part of "born again weak atheists" to even bother to come to Christian boards and chatgroups – unless one is a "Christ-hater", an anti-Christian, or an anti-theist (i.e. a God denier) – because one cannot logically and sanely get worked up over a God whom one claims is meaningless and non-existent. If one has no positive proposition to put forward, one is nothing more than a naysayer or a sick individual who gets his jollies by mocking the positive beliefs of others – positive beliefs being something he apparently lacks. Are you guys nuts? Get a life. As is asserted in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism: "If the atheist is simply without God, then he is not asserting anything. On the other hand, the theist is asserting the existence of something (God), so the burden of proof is on him…Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God." This is thoroughly disingenuous and self-serving. I am staggered (or perhaps I am not) at the frequency and boldness with which this asinine assertion is put forward by self-proclaimed freethinkers and rational thinkers who should no better, but continue on their merry way butchering the laws of logic and the rules of evidence. Atheist philosopher Ernest Nagel had this to say about the meaning of the word "atheism" in a book highly praised on the Secular Web site by the aforementioned Jeff Lowder: "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist-for he his not denying any theistic claims. As I see it, atheistic philosophers fall into two major groups; (1) Those which hold that theistic doctrine is meaningful, but reject it either on the grounds that (a) the positive evidence for it is insufficient, or (b) the negative evidence is quite overwhelming; and (2) those that hold that the theistic thesis is not even meaningful, and reject it (a) as just nonsense, or (b) as literally meaningless , but interpreting it as a symbolic rendering of human ideals. It will not be possible in the limited space at my disposal to discuss the second category of atheist critiques; and in any event, most of the traditional atheistic critiques of theism belong to the first group". "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism" [Ernest Nagel in "Critiques of God" Prometheus Books, 1976. ] So in 1976 a well-known atheist clearly outlined the dominant understanding among atheists of atheism at that time. One can see that in the 25 years since the first appearance of "Critiques of God", many atheists have deserted the traditional atheist position and have embraced what was formerly a minority position. Why? Short-term memory loss or something more sinister? Donn Day has done some detailed research into the etymology and history of the term atheism and he reports that as far as he can ascertain the revised usage of the word "atheism" has been around, only, since 1979. The first usage of the new "redefinition" seems to have appeared in, "Atheism: The Case Against God", by George H. Smith, one of the Secular Web’s top ten atheist books. This is how Smith defined atheism: "Atheism therefore, is the absence of theistic belief…in its main form, it is not belief; it is the absence of belief." A year later Prometheus Books released, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein. This book had the following definition: "…an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important…To be without a belief in God merely means that the term ‘God’ has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely, this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is a lack of belief." In 1984 philosopher Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism concurred, but he, at least, to his credit, explicitly acknowledges this as a "new" definition: "…we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist." Now I think we all understand that words and their meanings evolve and change over time in any language, but the current "hopeful monster" definition of atheism is definitely a case of punctuated equilibrium – it has happened so incredibly fast! The origin of the terms "atheist" and "atheism" can be traced to ancient Greece where they were applied to any who refused to acknowledge the official gods of the state. The Greeks designated as atheists those who, usually in the name of another faith, separated themselves from the established religion. The word "atheism" is a direct cognate (to use the technical term), a transliteration of the Classical Greek word "atheos" .Its meaning, is best expressed
… read more »
Response:
atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." "The question is," said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master — that is all." (Lewis Carroll "Alice Through the Looking Glass") Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism. Traditional/historical atheism is now referred to as "strong" atheism while an increasingly popular form of atheism rearing its head on the Net and elsewhere is known as "weak" atheism – the notion that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. And it truly is weak! Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms but I suspect that the majority of atheists one meets on Internet forums are actually too young to realize that they have deserted the classical position of atheism of their "spiritual [sic] forefathers. "Strong" atheism is the only respectable form of atheism, the weak version is nothing but a cop out; a flagrant attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof that always falls to the person who makes any assertion or argument. "If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." [Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith] No less a luminary than Interent Infidel Jeffrey Jay Lowder admits "anyone who claims, ‘God does not exist,’ must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."" So, presto, why not shift the burden of proof!? And this is exactly what a new generation of atheists are doing; they do not have a solid case to build for their position so they hide behind the cop out of pretending that they merely are "without" or "lacking" belief in God. Everyone knows the dictum "you cannot prove a negative", so to claim absolutely that gods do not exist is a pretty tall order. Isn’t that why fewer atheists these days are willing to make such a claim? A claim by the way that atheists of the 20th century made without flinching. Consider Jean Paul Sartre near the end of his life: "I have caught the Holy Ghost in the cellars and flung him out of them. Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe I have gone through it to the end." If belief is defined, as it is, as a positive attribute of trust, commitment and assent, then it is saying absolutely nothing of significance to proclaim that one simply "lacks" it. One does not produce dozens of web pages and appear on hundreds of forums merely to defend the proposition that you don’t have a proposition to defend. It is lunacy on the part of "born again weak atheists" to even bother to come to Christian boards and chatgroups – unless one is a "Christ-hater", an anti-Christian, or an anti-theist (i.e. a God denier) – because one cannot logically and sanely get worked up over a God whom one claims is meaningless and non-existent. If one has no positive proposition to put forward, one is nothing more than a naysayer or a sick individual who gets his jollies by mocking the positive beliefs of others – positive beliefs being something he apparently lacks. Are you guys nuts? Get a life. As is asserted in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism: "If the atheist is simply without God, then he is not asserting anything. On the other hand, the theist is asserting the existence of something (God), so the burden of proof is on him
Jared Lates… 