On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:17:39 -0700, Midjis <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On 15 Oct, 18:03, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >Yet you keep on demanding it
>>
>> In response to claims that people have it.
>
>If that's true, then it's fine; but as I say, the demand is
>meaningless, both for you - because there will be no evidence
>forthcoming, and for the people of whom you're demanding it, because
>they don't need it.
"They don't need it"? They're claiming to HAVE IT.
And it might be meaningful to someone who's undecided.
>
>> The "to them" part makes it NOT *objective* evidence. Objective
>> evidence exists independent of opinion.
>
>Yes, indeed: but again, belief doesn't require *objective* evidence.
I'm not talking about claims of belief, I'm talking about claims of
having objective evidence.
>> >then you have misunderstood the nature of belief.
>> I'm not addressing belief - I'm asking them to post the OBJECTIVE
>> EVIDENCE they claim they have.
>But in doing so you can't get around the fact of their belief
I'm not talking about claims of belief, I'm talking about claims of
having objective evidence.
>> It may have an effect on someone reading the thread who isn't quite
>> convinced that there's something to believe in.
>
>What has someone else's decision to believe or not to believe got to
>do with you?
It's one of the reasons atheists post challenges to theists on
alt.atheism. More than one person has started reading alt.atheism
undecided, or even a theist, and ended an atheist.
>> And you keep misrepresenting what I'm doing, and keep misrepresenting
>> what I'm doing, and keep misrepresenting what I'm doing ...
>Where have I done so?
You keep saying that I'm asking for evidence from people who claim
belief. I ask for evidence from people who claim that they have
evidence.
>> >And you're probably right. But the fact still remains
>> >that the absence of evidence is not... Like I said, you know the
>> >rest.
>> And I'm not inferring anything from lack of evidence other than lack
>> of evidence.
>And if you were arguing that you have no need or reason to believe in
>any given religion then we'd have no difference of opinion.
No, I'm asking people who claim they have objective evidence that
their god objectively exists to post that evidence.
> But what you're also doing is arguing that other people should think as
you
>do.
As far as backing up claims they make on Usenet? I'm asking that they
behave the way people are expected to behave on Usenet.
>> But the claimants' refusal to present any might affect the undecided.
>So we're settling firmly on the notion that the objections and the
>demands and the challenges are for the benefit of some prospective
>third party.
No, I'm settling firmly on asking people who claim on Usenet to have
objective evidence to post that evidence. I don't know what you're
settling on.
>> Nothing different now. I'll keep asking people who claim to have
>> objective evidence to post it, and you'll keep misrepresenting my
>> requests.
>I remind you that you're the one who's already made the groundless
>assumption that I'm a Christian. Perhaps we misrepresent each other?
The only "assumption" I've made is that people who claim to have
objective evidence are claiming to have objective evidence.
>> >You're saying that all these disparate
>> >cultures throughout millennia of history have repeatedly done so for
>> >no reason?
>> Other than lack of psychological maturity, yes.
>And how would you define 'psychological maturity'?
Not keeping imaginary playmates into chronological adulthood, for one
thing.
>> >You missed or ignored my point. Even objective evidence has to be
>> >viewed and interpreted through subjective perceptions.
>> That discussion is useless UNTIL there's some objective evidence
>> posted.
>But until that point is addressed, no evidence need be accepted as
>objective.
That remains to be seen once evidence is presented. Since none has
been presented in about 8,000 years, I doubt we'll have any problem.
>
>> Remember, an omnipotent god *IS* capable of producing
>> evidence that can't be.
>
>But need not do so.
You said evidence that could be misinterpreted. An omnipotent god is
one that can produce evidence that can't me misinterpreted. Whether
it will or not still remains to be seen.
>And even then, we would be accepting the a priori
>notion that a god has to be omni-whatever.
Since I'm asking for evidence of a god that's defined as
omni-just-about-everything, that's not an issue. I've never asked a
Wiccan or a Deist for evidence - because no Wiccan or Deist has ever
claimed to have any.
> In other words, a religion-specific definition of 'god'.
Yep - Christians - and only the ones who claim that they have
objective evidence that their god objectively exists.
>> > Everything we
>> >perceive depends on the function of our perceptions.
>> Not when there's an omnipotent god in the equation.
>Who says there is?
The people I'm calling on their claims of possession of objective
evidence.
> I'm talking about *religion*, not necessarily Christianity.
You're talking about my request for evidence, which was specifically
made to specific Christians.
> Taoism, for example, doesn't even *have* a specific god
Than a Taoist wouldn't claim to have objective evidence that that god
objectively existed, so I wouldn't ask him for it.
>> I'll agree that you should be silent about my posts to others.
>Oh, really? No, I choose to exercise my right to free speech: the
>right you seek to deny me by telling me that as a religious person I
>should remain silent.
And you're not telling me to remain silent? Do I detect a bit of
hypocrisy here?
>> And yet you misrepresent.
>So you keep saying. But you've managed to avoid saying how.
I've said how many times. I'm asking people who claim to have
evidence to post it, you're claiming that I'm asking people who claim
to have belief to post evidence.
>> >You, for example, have suggested that
>> >religion in itself is a mark of insanity - yet psychological
>> >professionals do not generally agree with you.
>> RELIGIOUS psychological professionals. Would you ask the Pope whether
>> Lutheranism or ****nto is the one true religion?
>Never mind the Pope.
Mind the Pope. You're saying that someone with a mental illness will
claim that others with that same illness are normal. Of course he
will.
> I'm asking you why "religion" isn't listed in DSM.
Because the people who wrote the DSM are theists, so they consider
religious belief to be normal. In the land of the blind, the sighted
man is considered crazy.
>> >I think you saw my question: how do you visualise the concept of
>> >'god'?
>> As someone else's fantasy. Do you need me to say it a few more times?
>Only if you want to keep avoiding the question. You can play semantic
>games all you want, but the fact is that when someone names a concept,
>we tend to visualise our personal impression of that concept.
Theists visualize gods. Those of us who have never been theists
don't. The fact is that simple. That a theist can't comprehend what
it's like to not "visualize" a god doesn't mean that atheists
visualize gods.
>In other words, when someone says 'god', you're likely to see your idea
>of what a 'god' is,
No, YOU'RE likely to see what YOUR concept of a god is. I have no
concept of what a god is, other than a fantasy other people hold.
>My suspicion is that, when someone says 'god', you see the Christian
>God.
Why wouldn't I see a Hindu god? Or Allah? Why would I see the
Christian god? That's as real to me as Kali. Or King Kong. Or Kal
El.
I'm not a theist of ANY kind, and never have been, so why would I
visualize a god of ANY kind? I realize the concept is totally foreign
to you, but you raised the issue.
>If I'm not with you, I'm against you - and if I'm
>against you, I must be Christian. Isn't that how you thought it
>through?
Wrong on both counts. If you're not with me, you can also be not
against me, and if you're a theist you could be Christian, Moslem,
Wiccan, Pagan or any of hundreds of other religions.
>
>> >> If your definition of 'god' is the one the dictionary uses, we don't
>> >> believe in your gods.
>> >>From dictionary.com: "any deified person or object".
>>
>> You had to go all the way down to the SEVENTH definition?
>
>Oh, I'm sorry - is there some rule of dictionaries that says only the
>first one is valid?
No, the general rule is that you use the first valid one, as they're
usually arranged in order of usage.
>My definition of 'god' is, as you can see, one that the dictionary
>uses. It's not 'the' one the dictionary uses, because the dictionary
>offers quite a few. And THAT is my point: if you're only
>concentrating on the one that defines the god of the monotheisms
Gods of polytheisms (and Christianity is polytheistic, regardless of
Christians' refusal to accept their own religion) also are
supernatural gods.
>> We don't believe in any of those.
>And despite the insistence of some, there's no reason why you should.
>But at the same time, it highlights the dangers in applying religion-
>specific arguments (and prejudices) to all forms of religion.
Since I'm only asking Christians to post the objective evidence of the
god they claim objectively exists, that's irrelevant.
>> >And yet Bill, for one, tells us repeatedly that God is a male creator
>> >of the world, all-powerful, who sits in Heaven and threatens us with
>> >Hell.
>>
>> That's how Christianity defines their god, God.
>
>Yep. But it's not how *religion* defines 'god'.
But I'm only asking CHRISTIANS to post evidence of THEIR god, so the
Christian god is the only one that matters here.
> That doesn't stop
>him claiming to be arguing against religion, though - when the truth
>is he's arguing against Christianity.
I'm not Bill, I'm Al.
>As I've said before, if someone's opposing Christianity and says
>they're opposing Christianity, then I'll leave it to Christians to
>meet their challenge. If, however, they're calling *me* - a non-
>Christian - insane
Since RELIGIOUS BELIEF - not religion-specific belief - is a mental
defect, if you're religious you ARE insane to some extent. It's just
a matter of how defective one has to be to be insane.
>> I see someone who, regardless of apparent chronological age is still a
>> little child. One thing I *don't* see is the thing he's referring to.
>
>I wonder. You seem to have a pretty precise impression of what 'god'
>is considering you have no personal view of the concept.
When I ask Christians to post the evidence they claim they have of
THEIR god, of course I have a precise impression - the god THEY
define. When someone says "ice cream" I don't think of a particular
flavor, but when they say they have a bowl of chocolate ice cream, I
do.
>> Maybe that's because I was never brainwashed - I've been an atheist
>> every day of my life, since the day I was conceived.
>I thought you said that where religion didn't exist, neither would
>atheism? Who preached to you in the womb?
I had no belief in any god - that's atheism, lack of theism. If
religion didn't exist no one would claim to not believe in the gods no
one talked about, but everyone would lack belief in gods. Everyone
would be an atheist, just as everyone is an aThrakite. You don't
believe in Thrako, no one believes in Thrako, so everyone is an
aThrakite. That you never heard of Thrako until just now is
completely irrelevant. You lack belief in EVERYTHING you've never
heard of. (Atheism, contrary to the belief of many theists, doesn't
take active lack of belief, just lack of belief. A chair is nominally
an atheist.)
>> were being silly. When I got a little older I thought they were
>> crazy. Then I matured and understood that calling people crazy was
>> impolite.
>Really? So now you prefer to hold forth about their 'psychological
>immaturity'. Because that's far more polite. Right?
So you'd have adults not tell children that they're children? Okay.
But that kind of renders conversation meaningless, if we're going to
favor 'nice' over truth..
>> If you're talking about anything supernatural that you believe
>> actually (not just in your mind) exists, post the evidence your claim
>> says you have.
>Nothing supernatural exists. Everything that exists is natural.
>That, of course, doesn't rule out gods, ghost, demons, angels, UFOs,
>or anything else. If they exist, they're all natural.
So death isn't really death, because, according to some religions, we
live on after death. Reality isn't real. Solipsism is reality.
Get back to me when you grow up.
<plonk>
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
|
